DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JULY, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 21.12.2023.
CC/346/2023
Noushad.P.V, - Complainant
S/o.Muhammed, Flat No.Bb2,
Sidhaan Enclave, Arivozhi Nagar,
Coimbatore, T.N-641 042,
Presently residing at
C/o.K.S.Abdul lathes (late),
Rajeena house, Near Mujahid Masjid,
Pattani Street, Palakkad-678 014.
(By Adv.Rajesh Panagad)
VS
Airtel Nodal officer, -Opposite Party
Customer case, Ground floor,
Near Ushas, Curies Complex,
MG Road, Thrissur.
(Ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complaint is about the failure of the opposite party to allocate a particular number for the mobile connection taken by the complainant. The complainant was using the mobile connection with No.9633333323 issued by the opposite party for over 20 years for business purposes. When the business was closed due to the impact of demonetisation in 2016, the complainant paid all his pending bills and requested the opposite party to keep this member in safe custody. When enquired about the same in 2020, the opposite party confirmed that the same is in safe custody.
When the complainant restarted his business, he requested the opposite party to release that number to him. The opposite party demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for allocating this fancy number to him.
2. Aggrieved by this, he complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party which was not replied.
3. According to the complainant, this is unfair trade practice and hence, approached this Commission seeking orders for allocating the particular number to him without charging any amount and for a compensation of Rs.5,000/-.
4. The complainant was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party. Notice got returned with endorsement “No such post in this address”. Hence, notice was served through E-mail. The opposite party did not enter appearance or file version and hence, was set ex-parte.
5. Complainant was continuously absent for the proceedings. No proof affidavit was filed or documents marked by him in spite of repeated opportunities given by this Commission. Hence, evidence was closed and the case was taken for orders based on merits.
6. In the meantime, the complainant filed an application as 319/2024 to reopen the evidence which was allowed on a cost of Rs.2,000/- payable by 27.06.2024. Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A5 as evidence.
7. The complainant paid the cost on 27.06.2024 and filed a memo. Hence, the proof affidavit and documents marked were taken as records.
8. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice dated 18.09.2017 for the period from 17.08.2017 to 16.09.2017, Ext.A2 is the tax invoice dated 18.10.2017 for the period from 17.09.2017 to 16.10.2017, Ext.A3 is the tax invoice dated 18.01.2018 for the period from 17.12.2017 to 16.01.2018, Ext.A4 is the copy of legal notice dated 31.07.2023 issued to the opposite party by Adv.Rajesh Panangad on behalf of the complainant and Ext.A5 is the postal acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party.
9. Exts.A1 to A3 prove that the complainant was using the number 9633333323 from 17.08.2017 to 16.01.2018. However, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that the opposite party had agreed to keep the same number in safe custody and to reallocate the same to him when demanded. Further, no documents are marked to show that the service provider is offering such a facility to its consumers or for the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- made by the opposite party for allocating the same number. Hence, the claim of the complainant that he is entitled to get the same number allotted is not proved by way of evidence.
10. The next issue is the legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant for which the opposite party has not responded. As a responsible service provider, the opposite party should have responded to the notice suitably explaining their position. This has to be treated as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Moreover the opposite party did not utilise the opportunity given by this Commission to join the proceedings and defend their case.
11. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed in part ordering the following;
1) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
2) The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
Pronounced in open court on this the 2nd day of July, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Tax invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant 18.09.2017.
Ext.A2: Tax invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant 18.09.2017.
Ext.A3: Tax invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant 18.09.2018.
Ext.A4: Copy of legal notice dated 31.07.2023 issued to the opposite party by Adv.Rajesh Panangad on behalf of the complainant.
Ext.A5: Postal acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 10,000/-.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
