IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 6th day of October 2009 CC/293/2006 E.P.Phalgunan, Erinhikkal Partammal House, Complainant P.O.Kizhunna, Kannur 7. 1. Anaranth.C.V, Staff, NIBIN Sun Glow Solution, Adithya Tower.Opp.RTO Office, Kannur 1. 2. Premjith.E.J, Channel Sales Manger, Hutchison Esar Cellular Ltd., 5th floor, KVR Tower, Near Mahatham Mandir, South Basar, Kannur 2. 3. Roani, Hutchison Essar Cellular Ltd. Opposite parties 5th floor, KVR Tower, Near Mahatma Mandir, South Basar, Kannur 2 4. Hutch Shop, South Bazar, Opp.Har Interiors, Kannur 2. 5.Praven, Hutch Connections (Rep. by Adv.B.P.Saseendranfor Ops1 to4) O R D E R Smt.KP.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.38, 000/- as compensation. Complainant’s case is that he has a prepaid Hutch mobile connection from 25.5.06 and had used the same connection for six months without any difficulties. But he had received many calls from opposite parties to change the prepaid connection to post paid connection, for which they offered a bag and free calls from Hutch to Hutch. So on 21.11.06 the complainant has visited opposite party’s shop and they represented that it is the last day of offer. So the complainant had purchased the post paid connection by giving Rs.300/- and the same was activated only after two days. On 25.11.06 the opposite parties had visited the complainant’s house for address verification.On that day opposite parties made clear that there s only one offer, i.e. Free calls from Hutch to Hutch and all other offers are not true. So the complainant requested the opposite parties to change his post paid connection to pre-paid connection. On 5.11.06, the post paid connection was disconnected and hence on the next day the complainant approached 1st opposite party and he promised that his connection will be changed to pre-paid connection. After two days the complainant again approached 1st opposite party but he represented that the complainant has to approach 4th opposite party. But 4th opposite party told that he has known nothing about the re-connection. So 1st opposite party again wanted to approach the other opposite parties. So the complainant had contacted 3rd opposite party and 3rd opposite party wanted him to sign some blank white papers for which complainant is not willing. But he has not received the reconnection of his pre-paid connection. He had loosed some of his contract work due to the deficient service of opposite parties. Hence this complaint. On receiving notice from the Forum, all the opposite parties are appeared through Adv.B.P.Saseendran and filed their version stating the following contentions that the opposite parties provide normal acceptable standard of service to its subscribers as per the agreed terms and conditions of subscriptions signed by the subscriber and the bills are automatically generated as against the usage charges and tariff plan opted by subscribers. There is no disturbance from the opposite parties office. The complainant on his own choice opted for the new scheme and have taken new connection. There is no misrepresentation fraud or deception as alleged by the complainant. The prepaid connection with number 9846565009 has been deactivated due to lapse of time of pre-paid connection on 23.11.06. The complainant ought to have re-charged the connection by the above date. On non re-charging on expiry of time, the same has been disconnected. It is not correct to say that there were promises to change the scheme to old scheme and had no direction to approach any other office. It is also not correct that the calls from the complainant were served by the customer care. There were no demands for signing stamp paper by any one related to the opposite party. The statement about defamation, loss of contracts and need for paying damages are utter false. The post paid connection cannot be activated due to negative credit verification report which is mandatory to be positive as per central govt. guidelines and licence conditions. The said stipulations has been insisted bylaw as there is every chance of misuse of mobile connection for terrorists and disruption activities antisocial activities and the like. On negative verification report, the activation should not be effected or the connection should be disconnected with immediate effect if under any circumstances any activation is already affected. So the complainant is not eligible for any compensation and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite aprties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony ofPW1 and Exts.A1 to A7. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 The complainant had produced Ext.A3 (a) and (b) which shows that the complainant had purchased a prepaid Hutch connection during April 2006 having No.9846565009 and during November he had converted it as post paid connection. As per Ext.A2 the date of activation is 21.11.06. But according to the complainant the post paid sim card was activated only on 23.11.06. But complainant’s case is that on 25.11.06 itself he had approached the 1st opposite party and requested to transfer his connection from post paid to prepaid connection. But he has not produced any document to prove this contention. But he deposed before the Forum that post paid connectionsFSp-¡p-t]mÄ agreement H¸n-«vsIm-Sp-¯n-«p-v. Fs¶ opposite party’s office \nÀ_-Ôn-¨p. The other case of the complainant is that his post paid connection was disconnected on 5.12.06. But the Ext.A1 (a) and (b) is the bill from 16.11.06 to 15.12.06. But as per Ext.A2 the date of activation of post paid is only on 21.11.06. This it shows that there s some truth in the complainant’s averment. So the words of the complainant that on 25.11.06 itself he has approached the opposite party to change the postpaid connection to pre-paid connection can be accepted. The opposite party admitted in their version that the prepaid connection has been de-activated on 23.11.06 due to lapse of time of pre-paid connection and the reason for non-activation the post paid connection is due to negative credit verification report. This means that opposite party he admits that he never activated the post paid connection. Then the question arise why the opposite party had issued the Ext.A1( b) bill. This itself is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. From the above discussion it is seen that the complainant has no liability to pay the Ext.A1 bill. So we are of the opinion that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have shown deficiency for which they are liable. But the complainant has not produced any document to substantiate his contention that he has lost Rs.38, 000/-. It is true that he has incurred some loss for which we assess the compensation as Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- as cost. In the result the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as compensation with Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order against the opposite parties 1 and 2 under the provisions of consumer protection act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Bill dt.16.12.06 issued by OP A2.Receipt of the hutch postpaid bag. A3.Coverf of the sim card A4.Telephone bills A5.Visiting card of Premjit. A6. Fax bill A7.Two sim cards Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumerdisputes redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
