BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KINNAUR AT RECONGPEO H.P.(Camp at Rampur)
.
Complaint No. 6/2011
Presented On: 30.8.2011
Decided On: 23.3.2015
………………………………………………………………………....
Sh. Jagat Singh Negi Advocate Ex-M.L.A, V.P.O Kalpa, Tehsil Kalpa,
District Kinnaur, H.P.
…..Complainant
Versus
1. G.M. Airtel
2. Nodal Officer
Both office of the G.M. Airtel 11-A SDA Complex Kasumpti, Shimla,
H.P.
…..Opposite parties
………………………………………………………………………………..
CORAM
Sh. K.S.Chandel, President
Sh. Vijay Kumar Negi, Member
………………………………………………………………………………..
For the complainant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Negi, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Sh. D.C. Negi, Advocate vice
Sh. Vivek Negi, Advocate
………………………………………………………………………………..
ORDER:.
K.S.CHANDEL,( District Judge) President
The complainant Jagat Singh Negi has preferred this complaint
under section 11 & 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the
opposite parties ( hereinafter referred as OPs for short) claiming
deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by the OPs. The
complainant has pleaded and claimed that he being consumer of OP
having mobile No. 9418006002 and the OPs are service providers as the
complainant has changed his BSNL mobile number under mobile
portability scheme to the Airtel (OP) on the claim of the OP providing
better mobile service, but, OPs have failed to provide services as the signal
has been very weak and fluctuating and thereby the complainant is
unable to receive and make the calls from his residential house located at
village Kalpa ,Tehsil Kalpa, District Kinnaur, H.P. The complainant has
further claimed that despite his complaint in writing for deficiency in


service to the OP, the OPs have failed to provide proper services and
thereby has caused loss to the complainant and, as such, has sought
compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for deficiency in service as well as unfair
trade practice including mental harassment and litigation expenses.
2. In reply the OPs have taken preliminary objections that the complaint
is not maintainable and the complainant is estopped to file the present
complaint and further the complainant is not a consumer and has further
claimed that complainant has suppressed the material facts and, as such,
the OPs have claimed wrong description of the OP as per Annexure R-2
and further agreement between the complainant and company Annexure R-
1. On merits, the OPs have denied any deficiency in service as well as
unfair trade practice as pleaded and claimed by the complainant as OPs
have pleaded and claimed that it is due to topography of the area that some
time the signal is blocked. However, the OP has pleaded and claimed
maintaining operational efficiency and thereby providing better services.
The OPs have further pleaded and claimed that as per terms and conditions
of Annexure R-1 the complainant is estopped from filing the present
complaint thereby has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The reply
is duly accompanied with an affidavit of Assistant Manager of the OP.
3. The complainant in its rejoinder has denied preliminary objections
taken by the OPs and on merits the plea of the OPs have been denied and
the contents of the complaint have been reiterated .
4. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and considered the
record carefully.
5. The complainant has tendered in evidence an affidavit along with
affidavit of one Sher Singh and Kulwant in support of the complaint
claiming that mobile services of the OP is deficient as the complainant
has claimed himself to be an Advocate as well as agriculturist and Former
Parliamentary Secretary. The complainant has claimed that from his house
neither he has been able to receive mobile call as well as to make the
proper call and despite his repeated requests to the OPs to provide the
proper mobile services the OPs have failed to do so. In the affidavit of Sh.
Sher Singh as well as Sh. Kulwant both have claimed that the signal to
the mobile phone of the complainant is always fluctuating and thereby


neither the call is properly received nor call is properly done as both the
persons have claimed having interaction the complainant.
6. The OP in the affidavit of Sh. Manu Sood Assistant Manager of
the OP has claimed that the complainant has suppressed the material facts
and there is no liability as per agreement Annexure R-1 with the
complainant and further there is incorrect description of the parties vide
certificate of incorporation of the company Annexure R-1. In the
affidavit, further claimed that taking into consideration the peculiar
topography of the State it is difficult to cover all the area despite erection
of numerous towers and rocky mountainous topography signal gets
blocked in certain areas called shady areas. However, in an affidavit it has
been claimed that better services are being offered being service provider
to the consumer including the complainant. The OP has also filed an
affidavit of Sh. Dipesh Singha Manager, Design and Network Planning of
the OP who has claimed that his report is based on actual facts existing
on the spot and further claimed that there is no signal problem at the site,
in question.
7. Since, the complainant is lawyer by profession as well as political
person and has changed his mobile number under mobile portability
scheme from BSNL to Airtel, but, the OPs have failed to provide the
services since the complainant has claimed that signal is very weak and
fluctuating and thereby he is unable to receive the call and make the calls
from his residential house which fact is further find mentioned in the
affidavit of the complainant supported by an affidavit of one Sh. Sher
Singh and Sh. Kulwant . The OPs have filed the affidavit of Sh. Dipesh
Singha Manager, Design and Network Planning who has given his
technical report and has claimed that there is no signal problem, at site, in
question, but on bare perusal of technical report it has shwon the location
of the tower of the OPs as have been depicted which provide coverage of
the area including the house of the complainant , but, there is no fact
mentioned in technical report with the affidavit of Sh. Dipesh Singha that
there is no fluctuating and weak signal in the house of the complainant.
Therefore, the complainant has been able to establish that the signal is
fluctuating and very weak in his house and he is unable to receive the
call and make calls properly from his residential house though the OPs in


its reply has claimed that taking into consideration the topography of the
area where the house of the complainant is situated, the signal gets
blocked being certain area called shady area and has further claimed to
maintain operational efficiency and this pleading of the OP is contrary to
the report of Dipesh Singha filed along with his technical report claiming
that there is no network problem at the house of the complainant.
Therefore, it amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade
practice by the OPs since the complainant has changed his service
provider from BSNL to OP claiming better services and despite objection
of the OP that as per terms and conditions of Annexure R-1 the OP is not
liable for any claim and further claiming the wrong description of the
party vide Annexure R-2 when company is duly represented by the
officials of the OP and thereby having no effect to the claim of the
complainant . Therefore, the present complaint is allowed and OPs are
directed to provide the services including the signal to the mobile phone
of the complainant and the complainant is also entitled for compensation
taking into consideration the overall facts including profession of the
complainant to Rs.50,000/- including litigation expenses. The OPs are
directed to pay this amount within 45 days from the receipt to the copy of
the order. Hence, the present complaint stands allowed. Copy of this
order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.
Announced on this 23rd day of March ,2015
( K.S.Chandel)
President
(Vijay Kumar Negi)
Member
(Mahajan)