DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.74/18.04.2007 Decided on : 26.08.2008 Abhishek Singal S/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Singla, resident of Piara Lal Contractor Street, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Sh.Manoj Kumar, Retailer, Airtel Pre-paid Connections, Singla Complex, Bus Stand, Mansa. 2.M/s Krishna Telecom, Khoo Wali Gali, Mansa Distributor and Stockist, Airtel Pre-paid, through its owner/Partner. 3. Bharti Tele Ventures Limited, SCO C-25, Industrial Area, Phase-II, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Managing Director. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Navneet Singla, counsel for the complainant. Sh.S.K.Singla, counsel for Opposite Party No.1. Sh.S.P.Gupta, counsel for Opposite Party No.3. Before: Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: On 22.11.2006 complainant along with his friend Sh. Rohit Singla had contacted Opposite Party No.1 for purchasing mobile connection. They were told that pre-paid connection of Airtel Company was available for a consideration of Rs.1,800/- with validity of 2 years and calling value of Rs.1692/-. They were further apprised that in case additional sum of Rs.95/- was paid towards Top-up recharge, the call rate Contd........2 : 2 : would be 50 paise per minute from Airtel to G.S.M.Mobile (Punjab Circle) and Rs.1.10 paise per minute from Airtel to Landline (Punjab Circle). Accordingly mobile connection No.98154 73990 with Sim No.8991020805047133020 was purchased by the complainant after completing the formalities. A separate amount of Rs.95/- was deposited towards Top-up recharge, the duration of which was 3 months as per version of Opposite Party No.1. He continued using the connection. In the first week of December, 2006, he had noticed the balance and call rate of the mobile connection. He was surprised to note that call rate was Rs.2.25 paise per minute and the balance amount was meagre. He asserts that he did not made so much calls. He came to Opposite Party No.1 in the company of Sh.Rohit Singla. He was directed to contact Opposite Party No.2, They were instructed to do contact Opposite Party No.3 and accordingly Opposite Party No.3 was apprised at his customer care number about the complaint. It had checked its record and the officials had told that inadvertently his connection was converted in the Life Time Validity Plan. Assurance was given that mistake would be rectified and the amount would be adjusted. Despite this no action was taken and the plan under which connection was purchased by him was not implemented. He is still paying Rs.2.25 paisa per minute as call rate. His grievances were not redressed. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act' ) has been preferred by the complainant seeking a direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to bring his mobile connection under the plan under which it was purchased; adjust the amount charged from him in excess towards call rate and pay him Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards mental tension and costs of litigation. 2) Opposite Party No.1 filed its version admitting that complainant had purchased mobile connection of Airtel Company, the validity of which was for 2 years. He had got the connection with Top-up Contd........3 : 3 : recharge against payment of Rs.95/-. Complainant was to pay the charges of the calls as per scheme of Opposite party No.3. He had not given any assurance to the complainant regarding the rate of the calls. Complainant had lodged a complaint with it and he had directed him to counsel with Opposite Party No.3. He denies the remaining averments. 3) Separate reply of the complaint has been filed by Opposite Party No.2 taking legal objections that complainant is not its consumer as the mobile connection in question has been issued in the name of one Mithu Singh resident of Ward No.1, Mansa. Complainant by way of presenting false documents got released the connection and if he is using it he is criminally liable. Only civil court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Connection has been obtained by the complainant in connivance with Opposite Party No.1. Complainant is not entitled to the relief on account of his act and conduct. He prays for dismissal of the complaint. 4) In reply of the complaint filed by Opposite Party No.3 preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that complaint has been filed to harass it; it is false and frivolous and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. As per its record, mobile No.98154 73990 is in the name of Mithu Singh resident of Mansa and not in the name of the complainant. Accordingly complainant is not its consumer. This connection was activated on 22.11.2006, Inter-alia, its plea is that complainant was charged as per usage made by him and accordingly his account was debited. Vide Subscriber Enrollment Form, it has been agreed that in the event of any dispute, the courts at Ropar shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Complainant is trying to take advantage of his own wrong. 5) In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Abhishek Singla, complainant has tendered in its evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C-1), affidavit of Rohit Singla (Ex.C-2), Photocopy of Contd........4 : 4 : another affidavit dated 3.8.2007 of complainant (Ex.C-3) and detail of Mobile and Sim number (Ex.C-4) 6) In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Shiv Kumar (Ex.OP-1), Airtel Prepaid Enrollment Form (Ex.OP-A), Identity Proof of Mithu Singh (Ex.OP-B) and affidavit of Manoj Kumar (Ex.R-1) have been tendered in evidence. 7) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8) To support his averments in the complaint, complainant is relying upon his affidavit Exhibit Ex.C-1 and the affidavit of Sh.Rohit Singla Ex.C-2. Copy of his another affidavit is Ext.C-3. A perusal of the same reveals that it was submitted for getting a report recorded with the police on the ground that his mobile connection was lost. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is proved on the basis of the evidence and record. 9) Arguments pressed into service by the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 is that complainant is not the consumer of opposite party No.2 as this mobile connection has been issued in the name of one Mithu Singh and that complainant by way of producing fake documents and in connivance with Opposite party No.1 is making illegal use of the mobile connection. Like wise is the argument of learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3. Learned counsel for opposite party No.1 argued that complainant had purchased mobile connection as per scheme of opposite party No.3 from opposite party No.1 and he had lodged complaint with him (OP No.1). He further argued that complainant was apprised that scheme has to be implemented by opposite party No.3 and for that he should contact the customer care wing of opposite party No.3. 10) Onus to prove the averments in the complaint is upon the complainant. No doubt opposite party No.1 admits that complainant had purchased mobile connection from him, yet there is no document showing Contd........5 : 5 : him that he is the authorized retailer or dealer of opposite parties No.2 or 3. In other words, there is nothing on record to show that he has been authorized either by opposite party No.2 or by opposite party No.3 to sell mobile connections. Opposite party No.2 is the distributor and opposite party No.3 is the Company. A perusal of Ex.OP-A shows that Airtel Prepaid Enrollment Form having mobile No.98154 73990 was filled in by Mithu Singh S/o Sh.Gurnam Singh resident of Ward No.1, House No.51, Mansa. Mere fact that Sim Number has been shown different, in Ex.C-4 and does not coincide with Sim number given in Ex.OP-A, would not make the complainant the true purchaser of this mobile connection. It appears that complainant and opposite party No.1 are conniving with each other in order to foist the liability upon opposite parties No. 2 & 3. In case opposite party No.1 has been legally authorized by the dealer, distributor or the company to sell mobile connections, he could show some authority on their behalf. Evidence to this effect is lacking. Request for recording DDR appears to have been made by the complainant simply to make evidence that he is the genuine purchaser of the mobile connection. In fact he is not the genuine purchaser. Had the complainant been the genuine customer and opposite party No.1 an authorized person to sell the mobile connections, complainant should have filled in the Enrollment Form for obtaining it. Opposite party No.1 must have obtained an identity proof from him. To the contrary, Mithu Singh has submitted identity proof and has filled in Enrollment Form, copies of which are Ex.OP-A and OP-B. Complainant is alleging that he had purchased pre-paid mobile connection of Airtel company. He is claiming the relief that his mobile connection be got made operational as per plan and the call rate which has been charged in excess be got adjusted. For this purpose complainant was required to establish before this Forum in which plan he had purchased the mobile connection and that too from an authorized person. There is no evidence for this purpose. Documents pertaining to the plan under which he alleges Contd........6 : 6 : to have purchased the mobile connection have not been produced and proved. In such a situation, how can it be said that call rate has been charged in excess and the amount allegedly paid in excess is liable to be adjusted. Since the connection of opposite No.1 with opposite parties No.2 and 3 is not established and the true purchaser of mobile connection is Mithu Singh, complainant cannot be said to be consumer of opposite parties No.2 and 3. 11) In the light of the discussion made above, no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.2 and 3 is proved. Similarly no relief can be allowed to the complainant even from opposite party No.1 in the facts and circumstances of the case. Complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed with costs of Rs.500/-. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of charges and file be consigned to record. Pronounced: 26.08.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Lakhbir Singh, Member. Member. President.
