JUDGEMENT& ORDER

(18.11.2022)

1. The consumer complaint filed by the complainantunder section 12 of the consumer Protection Act 1986, against the opposite parties for deficiency of service inter alia harassment is finally disposed off today in presence of learned counsels appearing for the parties in dispute.
2. That thecomplainantis the customer of BSNL and using mobile no.9402605286 vide sim no.404776160335864 issued by the BSNL, which was activated on 17.01.2017; used said number more than one year without any problem.It is only on 13.03.2018 mobile number was deactivated so on 14.03.2018 complainant made enquiry at BSNL Branch office at Takar Complex, Naharlagun where he found thatcomplainant’s mobile number was issued in his with new activated service sim no.404776160347183 without the complainant knowledge and information.
3. Later on,the complainant came to know that someone had purchased said mobile number with new activated sim number by paying an amount of Rs 150/-as per the register entry book of BSNL Branch office Takar Complex, Naharlagun.
4. On 14.03.2018 complainant’s WhatsApp and Facebook accounts were hacked by someone using the same mobile number of the complainant and created new WhatsApp and Facebook account for the complainant on 17.03.2018 lodged FIR atNaharlagun Police station. Then after proper enquiry, it revealed that said sim no. was taken by the respondent No.4 and the same was recovered from herpossession (respondent no.4).
5. That due to such act of the opposite parties the complainant’s mobile call connectivity was affected badly,the business transactions were also hampered badly.The oppositeparty no.4 and other opposite parties deliberately and intentionally committed negligent.
6. At severaloccasions, the complainant visited the office of opposite parties office at Itanagar from Pasighat and was mentally and physically harassed by them. Therefore, liable to pay compensation to the complainant for causing gross negligence and deficiency in service.
7. Complainant’s prayers:The complainant has prayed forcompensationof

1. Rs 1, 00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Only) for mental agony and physical harassment caused due to deficiency and negligent from the opposite party.
2.  Rs50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) for being the cost of hiring of vehicle/transportation charge for the period of three months from Pasighat to Naharlagun and Itanagar.
3. Rs 5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand only) for eatable cost.
4.  Rs 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousandonly) for wastage of his official duty time due to negligence by opposite parties.
5. Rs 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) for legal fees and cost for filling the instant complaint.

8. Upon the notice the Opposite parties no.2,3 & 4appeared and contested the present consumer complaint by filingtheir written statement but the opposite party No.1 did not appear despite of several noticeshaving sent, as such we decided go ex-parte against the opposite party No.1
9. That the oppositeparties no.2&3in Para no.4 of their reply did not deny of issuanceof duplicate sim card bearing no.9402605286 to the opposite party No.4, who is the wife of the complainant on 12.03.2018.
10.  The opposite parties no.2&3 denied of committing any negligent in rendering service to its customer and further denied of causing any damage as alleged by the complainant.
11. That the opposite partiesno.2&3 filed additional documents.
12. We have gone through the complaint,replies and written argument of the respective counsels and records carefully and thoroughly.
13.  We find that complainant is victim of sim swap.The complainant has been using a mobile phone with a BSNL sim card bearing no.9402605286 for more than one year butit was deactivated and so owing this,he complainant made an enquiry to the Branch office of BSNL at Takar Complex (Opposite Party no.3) from where he came to know that duplicate sim card bearing the complainant’s sim card no. 9402605286 was issued to someone else. The complainant later on, came to know that duplicate sim was issued to the respondent no.4, which shows that his mobile no.was swapped which has notbeen denied by the opposite parties.
14. Therefore, we hold that only opposite parties 1,2&3 being service providerunder the ambit under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 have caused deficiency in providing services to the complainant and accordingly we direct the opposite parties 1,2&3 to pay the amount of Rs 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand) for causing deficiency in service and Rs 30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand) as cost of litigation fee to the complainant within stipulated period of three months from date of receipt of this order. These are the reliefs we find appropriate to be imposed upon the opposite parties 1,2&3. However,in regard the opposite party no.4 before us is not a party and as such we refrain from passing any adverse remarks against it.
15. Pronounced on this 18^th November 2022 at Yupia
16.  A copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.