The bare necessary facts in the present case are that, on 27.09.2020 the complainant’s OPPOA5 model mobile fitted with JIO Sim vide No. 9938774673 was taken away by some unknown culprit. For this, even though he lodged complaint at Boudh P.S. on Dt.01.10.2020, Police could not traced it out till date. It is averred that on 30.09.2020 the complainant has approached O.Ps. for supply of a new Sim against the same number, but the O.P. remained silent. The complainant also send request letter on Dt.08.10.2020 for supply of new Sim against the same number, but the O.P. did not put any heed to it. Therefore he has filed the present complaint praying therein relief like directing O.Ps. to provide new Sim having same number and Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation.
To substantiate his stand, the complainant has filed documents like copy of request letter Dt.08.10.2020, complaint requisition receipt Dt.01.10.2020, Xerox copy of Aadhar Card bearing No. 6460 0914 6932, Xerox copy of SLC & Xerox copy of Voter ID.
On the other hand, O.Ps. have filed their respective written version and contested strongly denying and disputing all the allegations made in the complaint. Interalia, the specific defense plea of O.Ps. are that, on 18.10.2019 the complainant had submitted his Voter ID vide No. GTB1993005 before JIO Point, Boudh, wherein 15.06.1986 has been mentioned as his date of birth and the said data has been accepted and signed by the complainant and the same is available in customer activation form (CAF) and on 30.09.2020 the complainant has submitted his Aadhar Card vide No. 6460 0914 6932 as proof of identity, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 02.06.1987, as such his request for Sim replacement was rejected on the ground of mismatch of data between CAF and proof of identity as produced. Contending the above, both the O.Ps. have pleaded that all allegations as made out are to litigate, harass and to frustrate the O.Ps. with a pre-notional mind.
Having considering the rival contentions of the parties, the material issues that would have to be answered in the present case are:
1.Whether the case is maintainable ?
2. Whether the complainant being a subscriber is entitled and the O.Ps. are obliged to replace/supply Sim against the said number ?
3. Whether rejection of request for replacement of Sim on the ground of mismatch of D.O.B. only is a valid defence ?
4.Whether the O.Ps. have deficient in providing service ? and
5.Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as sought for ?
For brevity and convenience, we decide issue No.1, 2, 3 & 4 together. At the outset, taking note of the nature of dispute between the parties, we have held that being a subscriber of Jio Sim of O.Ps., the complainant is a “Consumer” under C.P. Act, 2019 and the present complaint is maintainable. Secondly, after due consideration of pleadings and documents of both parties we observed that the complainant has been a genuine subscriber of O.Ps. availing Jio service having No.9938774673, and a genuine customer of service should not suffer merely on the ground that the aged (not D.O.B.) mentioned in his Identity Card of ECI vide No. GTB1993005 does not tally with Aadhar Card as submitted vide No. 6460 0914 6932. After proper scrutiny we held that the D.O.B. mentioned in Aadhar Card and Transfer Certificate of School vide T.C. No. 1462489, Dt.14.02.2007 are same. So undoubtedly his D.O.B. is 02.06.1987 unless the contrary is proved. We noticed that there is no D.O.B. in Identity Card (Electoral) of the complainant only age is mentioned as 20 as on 01.01.2007. Therefore to our appreciation, the school document vide T.C. No. 1462489, Dt.14.02.2007, and Aadhar Card vide No. 6460 0914 6932 of the complainant are valid documents to evident sufficiently for the purpose of identity proof as well as proof as to D.O.B. The O.Ps. ought to accept those documents, unless contrary is proved strictly.
Mere pleading is not sufficient, to substantiated their stand, no documentary evidence are filed by O.Ps. to validate the reason for rejection of replacement of Sim against same number. Moreover, there is no evidence on record that the reason for rejection on the ground mismatch has been communicated to the complainant. Added to this, why no written reply against request Letter Dt.08.10.2020 has been served to a valuable customer of service. To our observation, it is totally not a case of impersonation or fraud.
Not responding, not rendering proper service instruction to a genuine subscriber, or/and avoiding service on simple technical grounds having no nexus with the service, etc. are to our considered views amounts to deficiency in service. The O.Ps. are obliged to set things all right and should not harass a genuine subscriber on some pretext or others. In short, having considering discrepancies in Aadhar Card and Identity Card (Electoral) only concerning D.O.B. is no way disprove the identity of a person nor disentitle him of availing a Sim. So it is held that the O.Ps. are deficient, in proving proper service. All these short comings can be short out by O.Ps. in the portal itself by demanding genuine documents from the complainant and simply rejecting the request for replacement of new Sim against same number can be termed as “deficiency in service”. So the defence as regards rejection is not valid, hence held to be bad in law. So all the issues as above are decided in favour of the complainant.
We have also perused the contents of memo of the complainant filed on 17.08.2022, wherein it is stated that if the number issued earlier is available the same number be issued otherwise in alternative a new number be issued to him. In view of the submission made in the memo, we direct the O.Ps. to supply Sim against the same number or to supply a new Sim against a different number after receiving documents as discussed.
In response to issue No.5 to our good conscience, it would be just and reasonable to allow relief partly as under:
i. O.Ps. are directed to replace/supply Jio Sim to complainant against the same number and in alternative in case of impediment other number as per the choice of the complainant be supplied/replace after receiving Identity proof as applicable.
ii. Compensation of Rs.5000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation, total amounting to Rs.6000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) only, will serve the ends of justice and the O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable to pay and to comply the order within one month, failing which 12% interest will be charged.
In the result, the complainant is partly allowed.
Copy of this order be supplied to parties free of cost, if applied for.
Pronounce in open Court, this 31st day of October, 2022 under seal and signature of the commission.
