BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.99/18.
Date of instt.:30.3.2018.
Date of Decision:21.12.2018.
Ravinder Mohan Gupta s/o Shri Ishwar Chand, r/o Model Town, Jind Road, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Kaithal through DET
- BSNL, Karnal through its G.M.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Shri Ashwani Goel, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Anterdeep Singh, Adv. for the OPs.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a cell one SIM about 15 years ago bearing No.94160-38430 under the post paid plan on payment of Rs.325/- P.M. It is further alleged that he is regularly making the payment of bill amount since the date of purchase. It is further alleged that in the month of April 2017, he approached the Ops office at Kaithal for issuance of ISD SIM with roaming facility as he has to go abroad. It is further alleged that at the asking of officials of Ops office, he was asked to deposit Rs.5000/- as security amount for issuance of ISD SIM. It is further alleged that accordingly he deposited the additional security amount and on deposit a new ISD facility, SIM was issued to him on additional payment of Rs.99/- PM which he is still paying. It is further alleged that when he rushed to USA, the SIM issued by the Ops was not working and thereupon he has to face difficulties. It is further alleged that on 09.5.2017, he lodged a complaint with the Ops office and in response to complaint dt. 09.5.2017, the officers contacted him but failed to redress the grievance. It is further alleged that he again lodged a complaint dt. 24.5.2017 but the Ops till date failed to redress the grievance without assigning any reason. It is further alleged that the OPs were also served with a registered notice dt. 29.12.2017 sent through Shri Ashwani Kumar Goel, Advocate, Kaithal calling upon the Ops for redressal of grievance but all in vain. This way, the Ops are deficient. Hence, the present complaint. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.
2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the mobile No.9416038430 is working in the name of complainant and he is having post paid plan of Rs.325/- per month; that complainant applied for international roaming and ISD facility on his mobile on dt. 19.4.2017 and deposited the additional security of Rs.4500/- on dt. 21.4.2017; that the new sim having international roaming was issued to complainant on dt. 24.4.2017; that after no complaint was ever made by complainant to Ops; that after a gap of about 7 months, complainant got served a notice dt. 29.12.2017 through Shri Ashwani Goel, Adv. on false and flimsy grounds which was properly replied by Ops and till then, complainant was still availing the facility of international roaming on his mobile and he had not applied for surrender/disconnection of said facility, so an amount of Rs.99/- per month was being charged for this facility, and since the subscriber was availing the facility, so the security amount could not be refunded; that the case for refund of additional security was to be processed after receipt of written request from complainant; that after receipt of reply of notice, complainant has now moved application dt. 07.4.2018 from postpaid to prepaid plan and surrender ISD sim alongwith refund of security, which is under process. On merits, rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Mark RA.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.
4. Undisputedly, the complainant has been the consumer of OPs having post paid plan of Rs.325/- per month. The complainant had applied for international roaming and ISD facility on his mobile on dt.19.4.2017 and deposited the additional security of Rs.4500/- on dt.21.4.2017 and thereafter a new sim having international roaming was issued to complainant on dt.24.4.2017. The OPs in para No.3 of preliminary objections of reply have specifically mentioned that the complainant had moved an application dated 07.04.2018 with a request for converting the connection from postpaid to prepaid plan and to surrender of ISD sim alongwith refund of security. Learned counsel for the OPs has submitted that the security amount to the tune of Rs.4874/- has already been refunded to the complainant duly acknowledged by him vide acknowledgment dated 30.11.2018 Mark RA and no grievance is pending for redressal. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 30.03.2018 and as per OPs vide an application dated 07.04.2018 he had requested for converting the connection from postpaid to prepaid plan and to surrender of ISD sim alongwith refund of security during the pendency of this complaint and even the security amount has already been refunded to the complainant, therefore, it cannot be said that the OPs are deficient in providing any service to the complainant.
5. The complainant in his complaint has claimed compensation on account of business loss besides undue harassment and mental agony but there is no document on the case file to show that as to what business the complainant was doing and how he had suffered loss due to the act and conduct of the OPs. It is settled principle of law that mere assertions without any concrete evidence has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Since the complainant himself has moved an application for surrendering of ISD Sim as well as refunding of security amount during the pendency of the complaint and also received the security amount vide Mark RA during the pendency of the complaint, therefore, it cannot be said that the Ops are deficient in providing service to the complainant.
6. Keeping in view of the above said facts and circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove on file any deficiency in service on the part of OPs, therefore, the present complaint deserves dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.21.12.2018.
(Suman Rana) (Rajbir Singh)
Member. Presiding Member.
Present: Shri Ashwani Goel, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Anterdeep Singh, Adv. for the OPs.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even date, the present complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.21.12.2018.
(Suman Rana) (Rajbir Singh)
Member. Presiding Member.
