BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.48/15.

Date of instt.: 16.03.2015. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 19.01.2016.

Krishan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Kumar, r/o VPO Matour, District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (B.S.N.L.) Railway Road, Kaithal through its S.D.O.

2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (B.S.N.L.) through its Assistant General Manager, Secondary Switching Area (SSA), 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 :        Complainant in person.

Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is having BSNL mobile connection bearing No.9416820919 for the last 10/12 years.  It is alleged that the said connection was closed about 3-4 months ago and on the next day, the complainant went to the Op No.1 and the Op No.1 told the complainant that the sim of mobile has been damaged and for which the complainant has to take new sim for this connection.  It is further alleged that the complainant deposited the requisite fee and I.D. to the Op No.1 and the Op No.1 told that new sim will be started in the evening.  It is further alleged that the sim failed to operate for many days.  It is further alleged that the complainant went to Care Centre and they replied that the sim has been closed.  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; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  Mr. Ashish son of Sh. Surender, resident of H.No.481, Village Kosla, Distt. Rohtak is a necessary party as at present, the mobile sim in question is working in the name of said Ashish and is in possession of said Ashish; that the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the mobile No.94168-20210 was in the nature of pre-paid connection and when, the recharge coupon was expired, the complainant did not recharge within the validity period of the above-said sim and ultimately, it was closed on 21.11.2014; that after closing the sim permanently, the complainant did not apply for revalidation of the sim.  So, the said number was created again on 10.02.2015 and thereafter, it was allotted to Sh. Ashish.  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 Mark CA & Mark CB and closed evidence on 15.10.2015.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed evidence on 06.11.2015.  

4.     We have heard both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.     In view of pleadings and evidence available on the file, we came to the conclusion that the mobile number 9416820919 was prepaid connection and when the recharge coupon was expired, the complainant did not recharge within the validity period of the above-said sim and ultimately, it was closed on 22.11.2014 and the same was shown on account history report (Ex.R1).  This account history report shows that the validity of the sim finished on 10/22/2014 and it was permanently closed on 11/21/2014.  After closing the sim permanently, the complainant did not apply for revalidation of the sim.  Inspite of the repeated messages of request for getting revalidate the sim by recharging, the complainant failed to do so.  A document has been produced by the Ops regarding disconnection norms.  According to this document, “India’s National Telecom Backbone and Pan India 3G mobile

service provider Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) today said that it will discontinue mobile services for prepaid customers on numbers that have no usage i.e., no Voice Calls (Incoming or Outgoing), SMS & Data for any continuous period of 90 days” (Circular).

The account activation date of the complainant’s number was 03.04.2006 and its expiry date was 10/22/2014 and the mobile number was permanently closed on 11/21/2014.  The said number was created again on 10.02.2015 and thereafter, it was allotted to Sh. Ashish son of Sh. Surender, resident of H.No.481, Village Kosla, Distt. Rohtak on 27.02.2015.  Moreover, Sh. Bhagat Ram, A.G.M. (Legal), B.S.N.L. Office, Karnal has made a statement on 18.01.2016 that as per record of Commercial Office, Kaithal neither the complainant has moved any application for duplicate sim nor any fee was deposited and no duplicate sim was issued to the complainant.  The complainant did not produce any evidence that he had deposited the requisite fees and I.D. to the Ops for issuing new sim/duplicate sim.  The sim was closed due to the fault of complainant.  So, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

6.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and we hereby dismiss the complaint with 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.19.01.2016.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.