DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 138 of 19-06-2009<br /> Decided on : 18-12-2009 <br /> <br /> Kaka Ram S/o Sh. Dev Raj Sharma, R/o H. No. 9325, Mohalla Pujjanwala, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Bharti Cellular limited, H5/12, Qutab Ambience, Mahrauli Road, New Delhi 110030 through its M.D./Chairman.<br /> 2.Bharti Mobile Limited, C-25, Industrial Area, Phse-II, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali 160055 through its Authorised Representative.<br /> 3.Airtel Communication, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Incharge/ Authorised Representative.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986. <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. B.S. Maan, Advocate, counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sunder Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he obtained mobile connection from the opposite parties Airtel No. 9815302510 and he has been using the said connection since 2003. He received message from the opposite parties on his mobile that life time incoming was free against some consideration and accordingly he availed this facility and it was assured to him that his connection is for the life time. About two months back from the date of filing of this complaint, his connection has been disconnected without any prior intimation and without disclosing any reason. He alleges that his connection has been allotted to some other person at Ludhiana who used to misbehave with the persons calling on mobile connection of the complainant. He made repeated visits to opposite party No. 3 and requested them to restore his connection but they kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately in the second week of May, 2009, the opposite parties refused to accede to his request. He also got issued legal notice on 25-05-2009, but no reply was received by him. Hence, this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') for issuing directions to the opposite parties to restore his mobile connection and to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for mental tension and harassment suffered by him besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 3300/-.<br /> 2. The opposite parties filed their joint reply taking preliminary objections that complainant is not consumer; the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government has the sole jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between a subscriber and Telegraph Authority; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and the complaint is frivolous and vexatious. It has been submitted that as per records of the opposite parties, connection No. 9815302510 was never allotted to the complainant and it is active in the name of Gurcharan Singh since 18th May, 2009, who is presently subscriber. From 16th December, 2003 to 31st March, 2009 the said connection was allotted to Navdeep Singh and prior to 16th December, 2003, it was allotted to Daljit Singh.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-7, original card pack of sim Ex. C-1, legal notice Ex. C-2, postal receipts Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-5 and original sim card Ex. C-6.<br /> 4. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties produced on record affidavit of Sh. Birinder Singh Mohindru, Asstt. Manager Ex. R-1 and photocopy of Airtel Prepaid Enrolment Form Ex. R-2.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Leaned counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite parties disconnected his mobile connection without any prior notice to him, which is illegal and due to this illegal act of the opposite parties, he has been suffering harassment.<br /> 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that complainant is not consumer as the mobile connection in question was never issued in his name, so the question of disconnection of his connection does not arise.<br /> 8. We have perused the record which reveals that complainant has not produced even a single document to show that the mobile connection in question was issued in his name whereas the opposite parties, to prove their this assertion, have tendered in evidence Airtel Prepaid Enrolment Form Ex. R-2 which shows that mobile connection in question was issued in the name of Gurcharan S/o Ram Das on 18-05-2009. Thus, in our view onus heavily lies upon the complainant to prove that he is consumer of the opposite parties, which he failed to prove. <br /> 9. Hence, the complainant has failed to establish that he falls within the ambit of consumer as defined under the Act. This forum is not competent to entertain and try this complaint as complainant is not consumer. Complaint being not maintainable before this Forum, is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that complainant is at liberty to get his grievances redressed, if so advised and permitted by law, from civil court or any other competent authority.<br /> 10. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 18-12-2009 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) <br /> Member