COMPLAINT FILED: 01.12.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 24.06.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 24th JUNE 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2826/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Muralidar Rao,<br /> C-103, <br /> Manthri Classic, <br /> 4th Block, <br /> Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore – 560 034.<br /> <br /> In person<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY AIRTEL Relationship Centre, A/1 Mamoor Plaza, 80ft road, KHB Colony, 5th block, Koramangala, <br /> Bangalore-560 095<br /> <br /> Advocate :Sri B.J.Mahesh<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant on 09.10.2009 purchased an Airtel pre paid SIM Card by paying Rs.407/- through his credit card. The Sim card number given was 95351 93192 and IME NO: 89914500030056102435. While purchasing the Sim card OP promised that same will be activated within half an hour. When the activation did not happen even after two hours, complainant tried to contact customer care. The copy of the email correspondence made on 13.10.2009 and 16.10.2009 are produced. The correspondence with the service provider was of tortuous experience and made the complainant to look for another service provider. Complainant was on USA tour between 14th October to 1st November 2009 with an intention to have contact with his mother in law she is aged about 65 years and not in good health. Complainant took the pre paid Airtel Sim card from OP. Though OP promised to activate the connection within half an hour in fact connection was effected only on 7th November 2009 that too after his daughter personally visited the officials of OP at their branch office at Kormangala. Due to non-activation of Sim card by OP the complainant put to totally tense and mental agony during his entire USA tour as he was not able to be in touch with his mother in law. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint for the necessary relief’s.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance OP filed its version mainly contending that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7687/04 dt. 01.09.2009 in the matter between General Manager, Telecom V/s. M. Krishnan & others reported in AIR SCW-5631. As per the said judgement, since the dispute raised by the complainant is between the subscriber and telecom service provider the remedy available for the complainant is u/s. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides for adjudication of dispute under the provisions of Arbitration Act; OP admits that complainant opted for purchase of pre paid mobile connection on 09/10/2009. OP denied the fact it was activated only on 07.11.2009. The number was activated on the very same day on 09.10.2009. The contention that the connection was not activated till 07.11.2009 is for the reason and best known to the complainant. The Sim card has to be put in the instrument only after the same being activated; otherwise if the Sim card is put in the instrument immediately after purchasing and the instrument is kept on; the subscriber would not be able to get the activation; if there is any wrong operation of the mobile or if there exists any problem in the instrument then also a subscriber is likely to face such problems while activating the new connection; There is no cause of action to file the complaint. Among other grounds OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced email correspondences. On behalf of Op its representative and legal officer Mr. Prashanth filed his affidavit evidence OP has not produced any documents. Both the parties submitted their written arguments. Then heard the oral arguments from both the sides.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both affidavit and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on the above points are:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the out set it is not in dispute that the complainant obtained Airtel pre paid Sim card connection to his mobile by paying Rs.407/- on 09.10.2009 from OP. The Sim card number given was 95351 93192 and IME NO: 89914500030056102435. OP has promised the complainant that same will be activated within half an hour. When the said connection was not activated even after two hours, complainant tried to call customer care. Complainant after tortuous experience thereafter made the complainant to give up and look for another service provider. From the copies of emails produced by the complainant it is clear that complainant tried to 121, 98450 12345, 9845098450. Call centers executive were not available with “press 9” option itself was unavailable. The officials of the customer care admits the mistake on the part of their agent further states to do the needful and to activate the connection by ‘5’ ‘0’ Clock but failed to call the complainant as assured. In the email dt. 16.10.2009, OP has expressed concern over delay in activation of complainant’s Airtel number 9535193192 and assured the complainant in resolving the same and requested complainant to contact nearest Airtel relationship centre to initiate further action. On 7th November 2009. When complainant’s daughter approached the branch office of OP at Koramangala, connection was effected immediately. Complainant was unable to contact his mother in law during his entire USA tour. Due to delay in activation of connection complainant was put to untold misery and mental agony through out his USA tour for no fault of his. Hence complainant approached this Forum for the necessary reliefs. <br /> <br /> 8. It is contended for the OP that the complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble forum in view of the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7687/04 dt. 01.09.2009 in the matter between General Manager, Telecom V/s. M. Krishnan and anothers. Reported in AIR SCW-5631. This contention of the OP cannot be accepted because under Telegraph Act dispute between the Telegraph authority and consumer can be referred to arbitration. In the present complaint OP is not the Telegraph authority but a licencee under the authority. Further the contention of the OP that connection was activated on 09.10.2009 has no basis. OP has failed to produce any materials in support of its contention that activation was done on 09.10.2009. Only on 07.11.2009 when complainant’s daughter approached the OP’s branch office at Kormangala, the activation was given. Complainant’s daughter not carried the instrument along with her at that time, when the same was activated. Hence the contention of the OP that there may be any wrong in operation of the mobile or any problem with the instrument cannot be accepted. Delay of around one month in activation of Sim card connection amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. We satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Due to delay in activation complainant was put to mental agony throughout his USA tour for no fault of his. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled for same compensation and litigation cost. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communications.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 24th day of June 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> gm <br /> <br />