BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 151

Date of Institution : 28-05-2010

Date of Decision : 03-12-2010

Jaswinder Singh s/o Sh. Baldev Singh r/o Street No 3, Hardyal Nagar, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu District Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited through Managing Director/Authorised person r/o Plot No 21-C, Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh-160101

...Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Neeraj Maheshwary, Advocate Ld Counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Harish Dhingra Advocate Ld Counsel for the Opposite Party.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party for illegally and forcibly without any notice withdrawing the mobile connection number 95015-00337 of the complainant and for penalizing the opposite party for not giving proper service in relation to the said number to the tune of Rs 80,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs 10,000/-.

2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is the consumer of the opposite party as it issued a mobile connection number 95015-00337 in the name of the complainant. It is averred that complainant is a permanent resident of Jaitu Tehsil and District Faridkot. The connection of the complainant was confirmed by the opposite party on 10-02-2010 and the complainant is paying all the bills to the opposite party and in this way he is the consumer of the opposite party. It is further averred that complainant has performed all the formalities required to be performed by him at the instance of OP and has received also a letter on the same address which is given by him to the OP. Complainant is working as Sewadar in Government Department and is having good social circle. Officers and colleagues used to call him on above said number. He had purchased the said connection by completing all the formalities by giving identity proof and documents after due verification and enquiry. The same was also started by the Company. However, after a few days his mobile number suddenly stopped working. He became out of touch with the officers and colleagues. Complainant contacted the opposite party many times and also approached call centre of OP on 26-02-2010, 02-03-2010 and Nodal Officer of OP but all his efforts went fruitless as opposite party did not take care of the complainant. The number of complainant is dead and non functional till date. It is further averred that act and conduct of opposite party caused great mental tension and harassment to the complainant. So, he has set up Rs 80,000/- as compensation for the aforesaid reasons and Rs 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 31-05-2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. Notice of the complaint was sent to opposite party in response of which Sh Harish Dhingra Advocate has put an appearance and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objection that complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum and that Forum has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present complaint in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs M Krishnan and Another.

On merits, it is alleged that number in question i.e 95015-00337 was disconnected as address verification of the complainant had failed. It is further alleged that as per directions/instructions of Department of Telecom and Licensing Conditions, collection of the documents viz Subscriber Enrollment Form and Proof of Identity and Proof of Address as also verification of the subscriber is very essential. Since the address verification of the complainant has failed so, OP was well within its right to disconnect the number for want of address verification.

5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bills as Ex C-2 and 3, copy of letter regarding activation as Ex C-4 and closed the evidence. Counsel for opposite party did not tender any evidence and closed the same on behalf of OP.

6. We have heard the ld counsel for the parties and have ourselves also perused the record on file carefully. Ld counsel for complainant has strenuously argued that complainant had purchased post paid mobile connection which was activated on 10-02-2010 as is clear from letter of OP Ex C-4. However, after a few days, said number suddenly stopped working. Complainant made several efforts through Call Centre of OP and through Nodal Officer for resumption of mobile services but all his efforts bore no fruitful result. He had already supplied requisite documents confirming his address and even received bills Ex C-2 & 3 on the same address. So, stand taken by Opposite Party that failure to prove address verification of the complainant had resulted in disconnection is baseless. In regard to jurisdiction, it is submitted by him that judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is not attracted to the Private Service Providers. Ld Counsel for OP has however relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court to plead absence of jurisdiction of the Forum to decide the matter. He further argued that OP has no grudge against the complainant and as such, there was no other reason than failure of address verification of the complainant which compelled the OP to disconnect the connection of the mobile number of the complainant.

7. We have keenly considered the rival contentions and have found that judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in General Manager, Telecommunications Vs M Krishanan and others III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC) is not applicable to the private service providers like OP. In this connection order of the Hon'ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh dated 27-02-2010 passed in first appeal number 1172 of 2009 titled as Spice Communications Private Ltd Vs Gurinder Kaur and another can be referred to with advantage.

The stand of the OP that number in question i.e 95015-00337 was disconnected as address verification of the complainant had failed is not substantiated by any material. On the contrary, it is proved on record that OP had been issuing bills to the complainant on the same address and the complainant had produced the said bills on record Ex C-2 and 3. It appears that ground of non confirmation of the address of complainant have been taken by the OP only to save their skin and as such, the same can not be legally countenanced. Therefore, in view of our above discussion and finding, complaint filed by complainant Jaswinder Singh is partly accepted with a direction to the OP to continue the incoming and out going services of mobile connection number 95015-00337. The amount of compensation and litigation expenses is also directed to be paid in the sum of Rs 3000/- within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite party is directed to the pay the above mentioned amount of Rs. 3,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of decision of this complaint till realization of the amount. In case, no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 03-12-2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar).