Delhi

StateCommission

A/09/228

IDEA CELLUAR LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMIT SAMOCHIWAL - Opp.Party(s)

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                Date of Arguments: 26.09.16

Date of Decision:    03.10.16

 

First Appeal No. 228/09

 

In the matter of:

            M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.

A-30, Mohan Co-operative

Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road

New Delhi-44.                                                                      .........   Appellant

 

                                      Versus

 

Shri Amit Samochiwal

S/o Ram Samochiwal

26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi                                                              .......Respondent

         

 

CORAM

                                                                                               

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

 

•  

 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

        Being aggrieved by order dated 26.02.09 passed by district forum, New Delhi in complaint case No. 483/08 OP has preferred the present appeal.

2. Sum and substance of the complaint is that respondent before complaining before district forum took Idea mobile no. 9891646494 in the year 2001.  It was pre-paid mobile connection. OP offered attractive scheme offering life time scheme in 2005 that old customers can also join the same by paying some additional amount. The complainant paid the desired amount and joined the same.  He communicated his number to all his relatives and friends.  In April 2008 he was shocked to receive SMS from OP that SIM registration failed.  He contacted customer care executive and came to know that connection was still in operation.  He requested to activate his number. One of his friends informed him that the number was being used by someone else named Abdul Manan.  He made call to the said number and mobile was picked up by Mr. Abdul Manan.  Said Abdul Manan claimed phone to be his number having purchased the same from   idea outlet.  He immediately reported the matter to customer care on 08.04.08.  The customer care refused to lodge the complaint and it was not possible that someone else was using his number.  Hence he filed the present appeal for activation of the number alongwith compensation.

3. OP filed WS pleading that if complainant destroys or scratches sim card, it would not work properly.  It denied any deficiency of service. It further denied that the number was being used by someone else i.e. Abdul Manan.

4. Both parties filed their own affidavit.  The district forum found why the complainant would have destroyed or scratched SIM card when he has paid for it. This is a strange way of deciding the case. Neither the OP was justified in taking this plea nor the district forum should have taken notice of the said plea. It was  case of be either party that the SIM was not working properly. The dispute was regarding the use of same number by a different person.

5. The conclusion reached by district forum is that it wondered how use by different person can happen. It is most autocratic on the part of OP without caring sentiments of subscriber to suddenly deactivate the SIM card who is life time paid and then allot the same number to someone else.  Hence OP was directed to activate the given number for the complainant and pay Rs. 40,000/- for deficiency of service, mental agony and harassment and pay Rs. 10,000/- for cost of litigation.

6. During argument the counsel for appellant submitted that respondent is using the same number till now.  When the counsel for respondent was confronted with this situation he replied that he had no instructions as respondent was residing abroad.  So I am inclined to accept the version of counsel for appellant.

7. In any event the burden of proving that number of the complainant was being used by someone else, lay upon the complainant.  He did not file affidavit of his friend who informed him that number was being used by Abndul Manan.  He did not place on record the call details which could have shown as to who talked on the said phone. If the callers were not related to the complainant, it could have been urged that they were callers of Abdul Manan.

8.     It is note worthy that the same was purchased in 2001. What would have been the value of SIM in 2001? For that amount, award of Rs. 50,000/- is highly excessive.

9. To put an end to the controversy counsel for the appellant offered to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the respondent. I find that the offer is quite reasonable.  The appeal is accepted and impugned order is modified to the effect that appellant will pay Rs. 5000/- to the respondent.

Copy of order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

        Copy of order be sent to district forum for information.

 

                                                                                                           

    (O.P.GUPTA)

                                                                                    MEMBER(JUDICIAL)​