DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Dr. Anju Gupta D/o Sh. T.P. Gupta, R/o #491, Sector 2, Panchkula.

---Complainant

Vs

Aircel Limited, Company owned Company Operated Store, SCO      No.404, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through Ms. Kavita Vashist, Incharge.

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:         SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA                              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                                 MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                      MEMBER

Argued By:             Sh. Vikas Cuccria, Counsel for Complainant.

Opposite Party Ex-parte.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the Complainant got her connection changed from BSNL to Aircel (mobile portability) on 31.1.2012 for mobile number 9417008878 and paid security amount of Rs.5,000/- vide receipt no. EPS8383895 through cash at the Company Operated Office in Sector 35-C, Chandigarh (copy of receipt Annexure C-1). It is averred that the Complainant paid the aforesaid amount to Relationship Officer Ms. Priya and asked her to activate international roaming as the Complainant was to visit Canada immediately thereafter and also wanted to use the facility in and out of the country. The Complainant at first did not have any problem with the connection when she was in India at Panchkula, where she is residing. As the Complainant entered the Canadian territory, the telephone displayed “not network found” on her Blackberry (curve), the same problem continued in Toronto and then in Calgary. Accordingly, the Complainant called Ms. Priya from Canada and told her about the problem and requested her to get the roaming facility activated, but the problem existed despite her continuous persistence to rectify the same. The Complainant claims that she is a doctor by profession and could not maintain a contact with her regular patients and with the result had to cut short her visit and rush back to India within a period of one week. In the process, the Complainant had to buy a new connection and make calls to India assuring her family and her patients that her visit would be cut short and would reach India within a few days. It is alleged that the Complainant had gone to Canada for a specific work and the same had to be left in between and she had to rush back to India with the fear of losing her clientele due to the inefficiency of the Opposite Party to perform their part of the duty that even the non-cooperation and unprofessional attitude of the Opposite Party caused a business loss to the Complainant and her visit to Canada was of no use to her as she had to cut short the same and cause her a monetary loss. Even patient trust was lost during that period and many such patients moved on to other doctors, which caused the Complainant a huge business loss. It is further alleged that as soon as the Complainant came to India, she visited the Opposite Party and met Ms. Priya for a refund of her money and damages too. However, to her utter surprise, Ms. Priya answered back that her company has no tie-up in Canada with any service provider. Further, the Complainant visited the Company Owned Office a number of times for refund, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.    

                   The complaint of the Complainant is not verified, but is duly supported by her detailed affidavit.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 04.01.2013.

3.                Complainant led evidence in support of her contentions.

4.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and have perused the record, Opposite Party already ex-parte.  

5.                The Complainant, who is a doctor by profession, had got her original BSNL phone number converted to Aircel i.e. Opposite Party, through mobile phone number portability in the month of Jan., 2012, and opted for a simple 499 plan and at the same time, deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards security. The Complainant has annexed Receipt (annexure C-1), along with copy of Tariff Plan annexed at Pg. 11 & 12 of the complaint. The Complainant claims that after having subscribed with the Opposite Party, she left for Canada in the month of February, 2012, and as a proof of the same has annexed Annexure C-2 (colly), which is a copy of her passport, wherein date of immigration check is found appended as 8.2.2012.                  

6.                The Complainant claims that before leaving for Canada her phone connection was working fine, but as she had preferred the company of the Opposite Party, who claim to provide her international roaming during her stay in a foreign country, had actually failed in their promise, as the phone which she carried along with her to Canada did not work at all in that country. For this reason, she claims that she failed to remain connected with her clients, and suffered professional losses, as she had left the same number with her clientage in India, in case they wanted her advice.

7.                We have gone through the details of the documents and also the prayer clause of the Complaint. But we have failed to come across any proof which could explain or definitely define the quantum of loss suffered by the Complainant, for which she had prayed to be compensated for. The Complainant has also not annexed any communication from her side to the Opposite Party wherein she had registered her grievance of not enjoying the international roaming while she was in Canada. The Complainant even after on her return to India did not make any communication with the Opposite Party in black & white for their failure in not providing the international roaming to her for which she had specifically availed their services. Though the Complainant claims to have paid numerous visits to the office of the Opposite Party, and having repeatedly contacted it over the phone, the Opposite Party failed to pay heed to her requests, the Complainant had only annexed a self-serving affidavit, without any proof supporting her claim. To our mind, the Complainant should have at least registered her grievance with the Opposite Party before filing the present complaint and also, giving it at least one opportunity to address or look into her problem. In the given situation, though the Opposite Party, on being properly served, have not joined the proceedings to defend the case, but at the same time, we feel that the act of straightaway rushing to file the present consumer complaint, too does not substantiate the deficiency in service against the Opposite Party, when such a grievance has not been registered with it by the Complainant, in writing.

8.                The prayer of the Complainant about the refund of security does not carry force as the Complainant has failed to bring on record that she had applied for a proper refund and the Opposite Party has refused the same. However, there is always a set procedure for such refund and the Complainant should have exhausted that remedy available to her, before raising this issue through the present complaint. 

9.                The third prayer about grant of NOC for portability to another service provider too cannot be given as to our mind there is no such need of NOC as no service provider can stop its customer in its preference of portability to another subscriber. In the case of the Complainant, she had originally been a BSNL customer, and thereafter, she had availed the services of the Opposite Party, by porting her number to it. The Complainant in her previous attempt of portability did not seek NOC from the BSNL, which would necessitate her to seek the same from her present service provider (Opposite Party).  The Complainant had not produced the copy of the NOC from BSNL which was necessary for the portability to the Opposite Party.

10.              The Opposite Party through their letter dated 28.1.2012, annexed by the Complainant herself as Annexure C-1 (colly) [Pg.12], was given an opportunity to register her grievance or any matter related to the services provided by the Opposite Party to their Nodal Officer and in case of unsatisfactory response she also had the option of highlighting the same to its Appellate Authority, whose e-mail I.D., as well as phone number are found mentioned at page 12 of the complaint. It would be pertinent to mention here that even the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in case any grievance against the telephone service provider, the consumers must avail the remedy as per Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, as held in the case titled as General Manager, Telecom Versus M. Krishna and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 481. In the present case, the Complainant had not availed the given option for as long as 10 months before filing the present complaint, by raising the issue at any level, with the Opposite Party, hence, the present complaint against the Opposite Party is not maintainable.

11.              In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is Dismissed. There is no order as to costs.                                       

12.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16^th January, 2013.                                                                

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

“Dutt”