Delhi

North East

CC/46/2014

RAO. Naved - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aircel - Opp.Party(s)

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

In the matter of:

 

Sh. Rao Naved

S/o Sh. Ansar Ahmad

House No.233, Gali NO.10,

Near Lal Boundary, Dayalpur,

Kadampuri, Shahdara,

Delhi-110094                                                                                    Complainant

Versus

1.         AIRCEL

Through its Manager

A-44, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road, Near Haldiram,

New Delhi-110044

2.         AIRCEL

Through its Manager

Registered Office : Fifth Floor,

Spencer Plaza,

769, Anna Salai

Chennai-600002                                                                Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                                                                      DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11-02-2014

DATE OF DECISION :     29-02-2016

 

Order

Sh. N.K. Sharma, President

Sh. Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member

Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

                                                                   

1.      The case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased 4-5 months before a prepaid mobile number 9716631101 in his name from the OPs and in December 2013 the complainant changed her prepaid number to Plan No.249 post paid for which the bill for the period 27.12.2013 to 26.01.2014 for Rs.36/- was received and the complainant deposited Rs.50/- vide receipt No.1924 on 06.02.2014.  It has been further stated that the complainant is electrician by profession and many persons/parties contact him telephonically for fittings in their houses, shops and factories.  On 05.02.2014 the complainant came to know that the OPs have transferred and activated the above-said mobile umber to some other person whose name was also Rao Naved and when complainant rang on this number a person by the name of Raj Kumar from Mubarakpur attended his call and told that this mobile number has been allotted/transferred to him. The complainant further stated that since the mobile number used by so-called Raj Kumar is in his name and the mobile sim was issued on verification of the complainant then who will pay the bill of the mobile phone.  This fact was brought to the notice of OPs by the complainant but they did not pay any attention to it. Pleading deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant prayed that above-said mobile number which has been transferred and activated in the name of another person be reverted back to his name, grant compensation of Rs.100,000/- for the loss suffered and mental and physical agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.   
2.      OPs were served with notice and the counsel for the OPs entered appearance and filed an application under section 12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  As nobody appeared on behalf of OPs on 05.08.2014 the application under section 12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act was dismissed in default and on 27.08.2014 OPs were proceeding against ex parte.  Though counsel for the OPs was attending the proceedings of the forum and also filed written arguments but did not got the order of ex parte set aside from the Hon’ble State Commission and participated in oral arguments.  On 02.12.2015 Sh. Trilok Chand Prakash Advocate filed his memo of appearance and sought time to argue the matter on the ground that he wanted to inspect the file and obtain necessary documents which was granted subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- and the matter was fixed for arguments on 05.02.2016 when nobody appeared on behalf of OPs.
3.      Complainant filed affidavit of evidence and stated on oath that the contents contained in the complaint are correct. 
4.      Heard the complainant and perused the record. 
5.      The documents filed by the complainant is bill No. 202617874 dated 27.01.2014 for billing period 27.12.2013 to 26.01.2014 for Rs. 36/- to be paid by 11.02.2014 and the complainant paid Rs.50/- on 06.02.2014 vide Bill No.1924.
6.      Perusal of these documents establishes the averments of the complainant and the OPs did not appear to rebut the allegations contained in the complaint.  Hence complainant’s case is deemed to be proved.
7.      On the basis of the above findings holding OPs guilty jointly and severally for deficiency in service and harassment we direct the OPs to transfer, activate and revert back mobile number 9716631101 to the complainant which is being used by one Raj Kumar as alleged by the complainant and the complainant should not be charged for the period for which the complainant has not used the same.  We also award Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the loss suffered and harassment caused to him and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.
8.      The order shall be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be charged on Rs.5,000/-, the amount of compensation from the date of the order till realisation.
9.      Let a copy of this order be sent to each party, free of cost, as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. 
10.      File be consigned to record room.

 

11.      Announced on  29.02.2016.  

 

 

 

 

(N.K. Sharma)                   (Nishat Ahmad Alvi)        (Manju Bala Sharma)

         President                        Member                          Member