BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2015

Remanded back vide order dated: 22-12-2014

Date of Decision: 12-06-2015

Raj Gund D/o Late sh.Sardari Lal, resident of 10-C, Green Avenue, Opposite Janta Colony, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Head Office of Airtel C-25, Industrial Area, Phase 2 SAS Nagar Mohali, through its MD/Director/GM. 
2. Airtel having its office at Court Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager/ Manager.

Opposite Parties.

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Kanwar Pahul Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Gautam Majithia, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.2: Exparte.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. This consumer complaint is remanded back by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order  dated 22.12.2014, with the directions to this Fora to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law on merits, as it has the jurisdiction to deal with such type of matters.  
2. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Raj Gund  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she got cellular connection bearing No. 9815267574 from Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1  which was a pre-paid connection and the opposite parties suddenly disconnected the services of cellular connection  for want of identity proof. Complainant approached opposite party No.2 and submitted her identity proof and also submitted Pan Card, electricity bill etc. vide receipt No. OMR 020077145 and officials of opposite party No.2 assured that the services shall be restored within 24 hours, but the same have not been restored by opposite parties. Complainant has alleged that at the time of disconnection, she was having sufficient balance of more than Rs.1000/-. Complainant requested the opposite parties to restore her services of cellular connection on 26.12.2010, but opposite parties did not give any response and failed to restore the services of the phone. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to restore the services of the cellular connection  with the available balance of Rs.1000/-. Compensation and litigation expenses are also demanded.
3. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as per directions/instructions of Department of Telecom, TRAI and Licensing conditions, collection of documents viz. subscriber enrolment form, proof of identity and proof of address is very essential. It was submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 was well within its rights to disconnect the number for want of address verification and proof of identity and issued the same to other subscriber. It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and Another (Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004) has held that when there is a special remedy provided in section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is barred, as such this Fora has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, so Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.2.2015 of this Forum. 
5. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11  and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. Opposite Party No.1 did not tender any document in evidence and vide his statement dated 23.9.2011, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 has closed the evidence on behalf of  Opposite Party No.1.
7.  We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant got cellular connection  bearing  No. 9815267574 from Opposite Party No.2 through  Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant has been using the same for the last about 10 years. Said connection was pre-paid connection. Complainant alleges that all of a sudden, the services of the aforesaid cellular connection  of the complainant were disconnected by the Opposite Parties in last days of October, 2014 for want of identity proof. Complainant approached opposite party No.2 and submitted her identity proof, such as Pan Card, electricity bill etc., vide receipt No. OMR 020077145 and officials of opposite party No.2 assured that the services of the cellular connection   of the complainant  shall be restored within 24 hours, but the services have not been restored by opposite parties so far. The complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2 and enquired about the restoration of the services of her cellular connection, the officials of Opposite Party No.2 told the complainant that the SIM Card of the complainant is too old and is damaged. As such, the officials of the Opposite Party No.2 issued to complainant a duplicate SIM Card  worth Rs.100/- and again assured the complainant that the services of the cellular connection shall be restored within 24 hours, but the Opposite Party No.2 did not restore the services of the cellular connection  of the complainant, rather they told the complainant that he should enquire from the Head Office of Airtel at Mohali. The complainant made telephonic call to the Head Office at Mohali, and then complainant came to know that her cellular connection  has already been disconnected permanently. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that Opposite Parties have arbitrarily disconnected the cellular connection  of the complainant when the complainant was having sufficient balance. Ld.counsel for the complainant further submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   
9. Whereas the case of the  Opposite Party No.1 is that Opposite Party No.1 has been granted license under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 by the Department of Telecommunication (DOT), Ministry of Communications, Government of India to provide Telephone Services to the customers. Licensee is bound to adequately verify each and every customer and following the instructions issued by the Licensor/DOT in this regard from time to time and if any discrepancy is found at any stage, the cellular connection  of the customer shall be de-activated immediately and in any case not later than 72 hours. Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that DOT vide directions/ instructions dated 24.12.2008 has enhanced the maximum financial penalty upto Rs.50,000/- for per unverified subscriber. So, in order to verify the identity of the complainant, she was given so many notices to submit her identity proof, address etc., but the complainant failed to submit the identity/ address proof to the Opposite Parties. As such, Opposite Party No.1 was well within its right to disconnect the cellular connection  of the complainant for want of fresh submissions of  documents. The complainant never produced her identity proof/ address verification etc. and as such, Opposite Party No.1 was justified in disconnecting the cellular connection  of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant was having cellular connection bearing No. 9815267574 of Opposite Party No.2 through  Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Bharti Airtel Limited. Said  connection was pre-paid connection. Opposite Party No.1 is licensee under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 under the Department of Telecommunication (here-in-after called as ‘DOT’), Ministry of Communications, Government of India to provide Telephone Services to the customers. DOT is licensor, who has issued various directions to the service providers i.e. Opposite Parties with respect to Subscriber Verification. As per the condition of the license, licensee shall adequately verify each and every customer, under instructions issued by the Licensor/DOT in this regard from time to time, which shall be meticulously followed. The DOT vide direction dated 22.11.2006 issued various guidelines to all service providers regarding customer verification i.e. to ensure that information about the subscriber is entered into licensee’s database correctly based on the information in Customer Acquisition Form (CAF) and, if any, discrepancy is found at any stage, the mobile connection of the customer shall be de-activated immediately and in any case not later than 72 hours. The aforesaid guidelines also prescribe minimum penalty of Rs.1000/- for per unverified subscriber. Not only this, the DOT vide instructions dated  24.12.2008 has enhanced the maximum financial penalty upto Rs.50,000/- for per unverified subscriber. As per the instructions/ directions of DOT dated 22.11.2006 and 24.12.2008, the Opposite Party No.1 asked the complainant to submit the identity proof and verification regarding the actual address of the customer i.e. complainant. The complainant was informed time and again through Customer Care Calls, OBD’s (out bound dialings)/ recorded calls and SMS’s regarding the submission of fresh documents/ credentials, so that the identity/ address proof  verification of the complainant is to be confirmed as per the instructions of DOT. The complainant submitted that she submitted her identity/ address proof in the office of Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Pan Card, electricity bill etc. vide receipt No. OMR 020077145. So this fact has been admitted by the complainant that Opposite Parties demanded the documents regarding verification of the identity/ address proof from the complainant  and as such, she was bound to submit the identity/ address proof verification/ documents of the complainant/ customer to the Opposite Parties, but the complainant did not submit  identity/ address proof to the Opposite Party. The complainant submitted that she submitted the documents i.e. PAN card, Electricity bill etc. for address verification to the Opposite Party and they issued receipt No. OMR 020077145, whereas the Opposite Party No.1 has totally denied that the complainant has submitted any identity/ address proof/ verification documents to the Opposite Parties. The complainant has also failed to produce on record the said receipt bearing No. OMR 020077145 as alleged by the complainant regarding the submission of the documents by the complainant to the Opposite Party. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has  lost the said receipt which could not be traced out despite best efforts made by the complainant/ her counsel, but in that eventuality, the complainant could summon the record of the Opposite Parties to prove that the documents regarding identity/ address proof  of the complainant were submitted by the complainant to the Opposite Parties. But the complainant could not do so nor the complainant in her complaint as well as evidence produced on record stated that on which date, month and year, the complainant submitted these documents to Opposite Party No.2. So, the Opposite Party No.1 was justified in disconnecting the aforesaid cellular connection of the complainant, otherwise the Opposite Party No.1 was liable to pay penalty upto Rs.50,000/- for every un-verified subscriber.
11. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
12. Resultantly the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 12-06-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member