Punjab

Sangrur

CC/168/2017

Amit Kumar Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Sanchar - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Anjana Jindal

25 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    168

                                                Instituted on:      21.04.2017

                                                Decided on:       25.07.2017

 

 

Amit Kumar Jindal aged 40 years son of Mohan Lal Jindal R/O #6C/685, Mal Godown Road, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. through its S.D.O./XEN, Telephone Exchange, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

2.     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. through its General Manager, office at Guga Mari Road, Near Mandir Shree Naina Devi, Dhuri Road, Sangrur.

3.     Idea Cellular Ltd. Circle Office C-105, Phase-7, Industrial Area Mohali, Punjab, through its General Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Ms.Anjana Jindal, Adv.

For OPs No.1 and 2    :       Shri Kali Ram Garg, Advocate.

For OP No.3              :       Shri Ramandeep, Advocate.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Amit Kumar Jindal,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is the consumer of the Ops as he had the prepaid mobile connection bearing number 94177-72464. It is further averred that previously the complainant was having a  post paid connection of OP number 3, but in the month of February, 2017, he got his number ported from Idea to BSNL after receiving the porting request from OP number 3. But, the grievance of the complainant is that suddenly on 15.4.2017, when the complainant was at Jammu, the OPs number 1 and 2 disconnected the mobile number of the complainant without any prior intimation.  After reaching at Dhuri on 17.4.2017, the complainant approached OP number 1 and the Op number 1 orally intimated that the OP number 1 has received a request from the OP number 3 that an amount of Rs.6600/- is outstanding towards the complainant, whereas the complainant had paid the last bill of Rs.42/- before porting of the mobile connection.   It is further averred that though the complainant apprised the OP number 3 about the no dues of any amount against the complainant, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to restore the mobile connection of the complainant and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by OPs number 1 and 2, it is admitted that the complainant was the holder of the post paid mobile connection from OP number 3, which had been ported to BSNL from Idea on 09.01.2017.  It is further admitted that the outgoing and incoming calls of the mobile number in question were barred by the system automatically on 15.4.2017 due to non payment of subscriber response of M/s. Idea through mobile number Portability Gateway to BSNL that an amount of Rs.6626.86 is due against the customer of the above said mobile number.  The complainant was however intimated accordingly in advance through SMS.  Further case of the Ops is that the complainant was asked on 17.4.2017 to deposit the outstanding amount with the OP number 3, so that the connection may be restored. It is further averred that after several reminders and repeated pursuances OP number 3 conveyed that all dues are clear in respect of the said customer/complainant. But, when the Op number 3 was asked about the reason for NPOS response, receipt number and date of payment etc. no information was provided by Op number 3 either to OP number 1 and or OP number 2. It is further averred that after receipt of the confirmation from OP number 3 on 9.5.2017 that all dues are clear, the connection of the complainant was restored on 9.5.2017 immediately. However, any deficiency in service on the part of OPs has been denied in toto.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint, that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint, that it is stated that the mobile number in question was ported in by the complainant in post paid category as one of the corporate connections with the company name AP Organics Ltd. The said connection was activated as a corporate connection on 25.6.2016, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complaint is false and frivolous one.  On merits, it is admitted that previously the complainant was having a postpaid connection of OP number 3  and the complainant in the month of January, 2017, got his number ported from Idea to BSNL.  It is stated further that the complainant was using the mobile number in the corporate category under the name AP Organics Ltd. and the Ops number 1 and 2 intimated about the outstanding of the other corporate numbers of the company. However, any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 3 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, ExC-2 copy of payment receipt dated 17.2.2017 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/6 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit along with Annexure OP/3-1 to AnnexureOP3/5 and closed evidence. 

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had a mobile number 94177-72464 from OP number 3 and in the month of February, 2017 he ported the mobile number in question from Idea to BSNL after receiving the porting request from the Op number 3.  It is also an admitted fact that the Ops number 1 and 2 on 17.4.2017 barred the outgoing and incoming call facility on the mobile number of the complainant as the OP number 3 intimated to Ops number 1 and 2 that an amount of Rs.6600/- is outstanding against the said mobile number of the complainant recoverable by Op number 3.   The grievance of the complainant is that despite the fact nothing was due towards the complainant of OP number 3, the Op number 3 told the OPs number 1 and 2 regarding the outstanding amount of Rs.6600/- against the complainant, as such the Ops number 1 and 2 barred the outgoing and incoming call facility on the mobile number of the complainant on 17.4.2017.  It is worth mentioning here when the OP number 3 allowed the porting of the mobile number of the complainant from OP number 3 to OP number 1 then the OP number 3 got deposited the due amount of Rs.42/-, as is evident from the copy of the monthly bill pertaining to the complainant, a copy of which on record is Annexure Op3/3.  However, there is no clear cut explanation from the side of the Op number 3 how OP number 3 intimated the Ops number 1 and 2 that an amount of Rs.6600/- is outstanding against the complainant and the OP number 1 and 2 disconnected the mobile connection in question on 17.4.2017 and restored only 9.5.2017 when the OP number 3 intimated that there is nothing due towards the complainant and as such, we feel that the harassment was caused to the complainant not by OPs number 1 and 2 rather the same was due to the wrong act of the OP number 3.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant remained without mobile connection for the period from 17.4.2017 to 9.5.2017 due to the wrong act of the Op number 3, as such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a proved case of clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP number 3.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 25, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member