DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.341/2008
SHRI DHARENDRA KUMAR OJHA,
48- SARAI JULLENA,
NEW DELHI-25.
….Complainant
Versus
- THE GENERAL MANAGER,
BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED
(A BHARTI ENTERPRISE)
QUTAB AMBIENCE (AT QUTAB MINAR),
MEHRAULI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110030.
- ARIHANT MOBILE JUNCTION
12, ASHRAM, MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-14
- CELLULAR HUT
F.S.O. BHARTI CELLULAR LTD.
G-32, MAIN ROAD, KALKAJI,
NEW DELHI-19.
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 31.05.2008 Date of Order : 20.09.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant applied for the new phone connection from OP-1 through OP-2 on 08.03.2008. The said connection was prepaid and the complainant had paid the requisite amount and given all the documents i.e. ID proof and address proof asked by the OPs. The phone number given by the OPs was 9810473214. Complainant works as a travel consultant and has to handle lots of clients daily on phone to provide quick and satisfactory services to the clients. During the use of the said connection, he faced some problem regarding congestion in the network, call drops and other network problem regarding which he had made complaints to OP-1 time and again through the customer care of OP-1. The problem was sorted out in few days but the same again occurred. It is submitted that he was a very busy person and not followed the complaint rigorously as the problems were temporary in nature. On 01.05.2008, his phone was disconnected without any prior intimation. He sent the documents as per the advice of the OPs thrice but connection of his phone was not restored by the OPs. Due to conduct of OPs, he suffered mental agony and mental harassment and heavy financial lost for a long time. Hence, there is a gross deficiency on the part of OPs. He has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OPs to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony, mental torture, harassment, financial loss etc., to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant towards the litigation and miscellaneous expenses and to active the phone in question.
OP-1 in its written statement has inter-alia stated that Govt. of India through Deptt. of Telecommunication vide order no. 800-04/2003-VAS/112 dated 10.05.2005 issued direction to all CMTS licensees and UAS licensee for verification of identity of the subscribers. OP No.1 was under mandate to comply with such directions from DoT as being their licensor. It is submitted that the main grievance of the complainant is that service of his new no. 9810473214 after being activated for few days was deactivated by OP-1 despite completion of all the formalities. It is submitted that in the month of March, 2008, complainant was allowed to use the services of OP-1 as complainant had assured OP-1 that within a day or two of subscribing the connection he will furnish his ID proof and residential proof to OP-1 but all the assurance and promises of the complainant turned out to be false as complainant despite various reminders, calls did not come forward to furnish the aforesaid documents to OP-1. The complainant was time and again called by OP-1 to furnish the above said documents in order to enjoy uninterrupted service of OP-1 but the complainant failed to deposit the above said documents due to which OP-1 was unable to carry out residential verification of the complainant. Therefore, OP-1 was constrained to bar the service of connection bearing No. 9810433214 of the complainant. It is submitted that no services have been rendered by OP-1 to the complainant. There is no question of there being deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
The complainant has filed the rejoinder and reiterated the same averments made in the complaint.
OP-2 and OP-3 were proceeded exparte vide order dated 14.11.2008 by our predecessors.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, OP-1 has filed affidavit of Sh. Urfee Haider, Executive (Legal) in evidence.
Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments.
Complainant has not marked exhibit nos. on the documents.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Complainant has filed Annexure P-1 (customer copy) dated 08.03.2008 whereby he was given mobile phone No.9810473214. It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant was assigned mobile No.9810473214 by the OP No.1 and that the OP No.1 disconnected/deactivated the said phone. According to OP No.1, it has done so because of incompliance with the order issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Telecommunication referred to above as the complainant has failed to provide documents with respect to his residential address etc. The issuance of the order by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Telecommunication referred to above cannot be disputed by the Complainant. It was for the Complainant to prove that he had complied with the direction contained in the said order and sent the required information to the OP No.1 but, however, in our considered opinion, the Complainant has failed to prove any such fact on the record and he has even not filed the copies of the required documents before this Forum. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 20.09.17.
