BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.109/15.
Date of instt.: 29.05.2015.
Date of Decision: 13.05.2016.
Joginder Singh S/o Suraj Singh, R/o Gali No.6, Shakti Nagar, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. BSNL through its SDO Kaithal.
2. BSNL through its General Manager, Telecom, Distt. Karnal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Pushpinder Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a paid mobile No.9468450000 in his name on payment of Rs.9647/- vide receipt No.75328 dt. 19.01.2011 from the office of Ops. It is alleged that the above-said number was circulated among the people, who known to the complainant and complainant was using the said number without any interruption since the date of its purchase. It is further alleged that the complainant got surprised when the above-said number got deactivated by the Ops without giving any prior intimation/legal notice illegally and unlawfully on the ground that the subscriber has not got recharged this number timely. It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops to activate the above-said number but the Ops flatly refused to activate the said number and also refused to return the security amount deposited by the complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the mobile No.94684-50000 was in the nature prepaid connection and the said connection when not recharged during the validity period of sim even after the reminders through SMS on 10.09.2013, 23.09.2013 and 24.09.2013, the number of said sim was permanently closed on 24.10.2013. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CA to Ex.CD and closed evidence on 22.03.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Mark RA to Mark RF and closed evidence on 22.03.2016..
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased a mobile No.9468450000 in his name on payment of Rs.9647/- vide receipt No.75328 dt. 19.01.2011 from the Ops. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the above-said mobile number of the complainant was deactivated without giving any prior intimation/legal notice. He further argued that the complainant was using the said number regularly without any interruption for more than 2½ years after getting the same recharged. He further argued that inspite of repeated requests by the complainant, the Ops have not re-activated the same. He further argued that now the Ops have refused to activate the said number and also refused to refund the security amount. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops has argued that the said mobile No.9468450000 was in the nature of pre-paid connection. The said mobile number was not got recharged during the validity period of sim inspite of reminders through SMS on 10.09.2013, 23.09.2013 and 24.09.2013 and ultimately, the number of said sim was permanently closed on 24.10.2013. He further argued that the above-said number was in the nature of vanity/V.I.P. number for which the customer has to pay extra money. He further argued that in the pre-paid connection, no security amount is to be deposited by the customer. He further argued that the amount which the complainant had deposited is the amount for the number of vanity/V.I.P. and the said amount is non-refundable. As such, the complainant himself was at fault and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
6. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the vanity/V.I.P. mobile No.9468450000 was purchased by the complainant on payment of Rs.9647/-. The said number was a pre-paid number. The complainant had not recharged the same during the validity of sim even inspite of reminders through SMS on 10.09.2013, 23.09.2013 and 24.09.2013 by the Ops and ultimately, the Ops had closed the number of said sim permanently on 24.10.2013. This Forum has put a query to ld. counsel for the Ops that whether the mobile number in question has been re-allotted to any other person or not? The Ld. Counsel for the Ops after consultation with the officer of BSNL present in this Forum, stated at bar that the said mobile number has not been re-allotted to any other person till now. The complainant has purchased the said number and said number has not been re-allotted to any other person. The interest of justice may be met if the said mobile number is re-allotted to the complainant. As mentioned above, the complainant was also at fault, so, the justice requires that he should be penalized for his default.
7. Keeping in view the above discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the Ops to re-allot the vanity/V.I.P. mobile No.9468450000 to the complainant, subject to the condition that the complainant will deposit Rs.4500/- with the Ops within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the Ops will be at liberty to re-allot the said mobile number to any person. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt. 13.05.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
