Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/56/2015

Nitika Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Garg Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Taveesh Goyal

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.56 of 2015

                                           Date of institution :01.07.2015                                                   Date of decision    : 14.03.2016

Nitika Bhardwaj aged about 36 years wife of Manu Bhardwaj daughter of Sh. Krishan Pathak, resident of H.No.231, Sec. 3-C, Ram Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1.     Manish Garg owner of Garg Shopee, Authorized Dealer, Idea Cellular Ltd., Gaushala Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib-147301.

2.     Idea Cellular Ltd., Divisional Office: C-5, Industrial Area, Phase-7, SAS Nagar, Mohali-160055.

3.     The Managing Director, Idea Cellular Ltd., Head Office: A-68, Sec. 64, Near Fortis Hospital, Noida-201301.

4.     Naresh Bhatia Area Head of Idea Cellular Ltd., Sec.-35, SCO 495-496, Chandigarh-160022.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                                                              Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                                          

Present :  Sh.Taveesh Goyal, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                                      None for OP No.1.                                                                        Sh. Anwar Hussain, Adv.Cl. for OPs No.2 to 4.  

ORDER

 

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                     Complainant, Nitika Bhardwaj aged about 36 years wife of Manu Bhardwaj daughter of Sh. Krishan Pathak, resident of H.No.231, Sec. 3-C, Ram Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant with the help of her father purchased a Mobile Phone Number of Idea Company bearing No.98145-94255(Prepaid Connection),(SIM Number: 8991149450001293936) from Mandi Gobindgarh in November 2013. As the complainant is married at Jalandhar, she went to Jalandhar along with the said number. The husband of the complainant, who lives at Jalandhar, converted the said number into Postpaid on 08.05.2014. Thereafter due to marital dispute she came back at her parental home at Mandi Gobindgarh and on 05.11.2014 a service message from the Idea Company received on the said mobile number that “Dear Customer your request for disconnection for mobile number 98145-94255 is registered and would be actioned within 22 hours. Sr. No.C1-35781068829.Thank you”. After receiving the said message the father of the complainant immediately went to the IDEA outlet and enquired about the said message. The official person sitting at the IDEA Outlet checked from the system and replied that the request for the disconnection of the said mobile number is being proceeded by the person bearing mobile number 98140-61189. The complainant further stated that without any request being forwarded by the owner of the mobile number, how any third person can give the request for disconnection, even there is no policy of the Idea company that anyone can proceed the request for the disconnection of the mobile number. The official person sitting at the IDEA Outlet replied that it might be by mistake and asked the father of the complainant to deposit Rs.30/- for new Sim and advised him to insert the new Sim if the said number will be disconnected. The father of the complainant deposited Rs. 30/- via reference number 56999623 dated 14.11.2014. Thereafter on 14.11.2014 again a service message from the IDEA Company received on the said mobile number of the complainant that “Dear Customer your request for disconnection for mobile number 98145-94255 is registered and would be actioned within 22 hours. Sr. No.C1-35781068829.Thank you”. The father of the complainant again visited to the IDEA outlet and again showed the message received in the mobile phone to the official person sitting at the said IDEA Outlet. The official person replied that this time the request for disconnection of the mobile number is being proceeded by the person bearing mobile Number 98882-91666. The complainant was shocked that the said mobile number is the number of her father and he never made a request for disconnection of the mobile number of the complainant. Thereafter the brother of the complainant visited OP No.4 and discussed the whole matter but no response was given by  OP No.4. Thereafter the complainant along with her brother visited OP No.2 and requested to give copy of applications for disconnection of the mobile number in question. But no positive response was given by it. The complainant also sought the information through RTI but no information was given by it, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs  due to which the complainant suffered harassment and huge loss. The complainant also served legal notice upon OPs through her counsel but in vain. Hence this complaint, for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.  
3.           Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and OPs No. 2 to 4 appeared through counsel and OP No.1 appeared in person but after appearing first time on 24.08.2015, OP No.1 failed to turn up. Therefore, the defence of OP No.1 was struck off.
4.           The complaint is contested by OPs No. 2 to 4, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint they stated that the mobile number of the complainant in question was earlier issued in the name of Krishan Pathak, her father in pre-paid category and then the same was issued in the name of complainant, when the same was converted from pre-paid to post-paid. It is further stated that a request for disconnection/change of billing address was received on 05.11.2014, on the basis that the complainant is not residing at the given address at Jalandhar. Then before processing the said request of the number, the complainant was called on 05.11.2014 and she wanted to continue the number. Thus that request was rejected and the number of the complainant was not disconnected in the system and at the request of complainant for change of sim card, a new sim card bearing number 8991149450001293936 was issued. Thereafter, a letter, signed by Manu Bhardwaj husband of the complainant,  was received at the office of M/s Ashwani Enterprises at Jalandhar on 14.11.2014 with the request for disconnection of the services of the mobile No.98145-94255 stating that the complainant was not residing at the given address at Jalandhar. The OPs verified the facts and found that the complainant was not residing at the given address at Jalandhar.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and they are unnecessary dragged in the present litigation. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.           In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, attested copy of divorce petition Ex.C-2, copy of sim and bills paid Ex. C-3, attested copy of message received on mobile on 05.11.2014 Ex. C-4, attested copy of message received on mobile on 14.11.2014 Ex. C-5, attested copy of RTI application Ex. C-6, legal notices Ex. C-7 and C-8, postal receipts Ex. C-9 and C-10 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs No. 2 to 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Manoj Madan, Authorized signatory Ex. OP2/1, true copies of documents i.e. customer application forms Ex. OP2/2 and OP2/3(along with residence proof), letter dated 14.11.2013 Ex. OP2/4, application form Ex. OP2/5, customer request Ex. OP2/6 and closed the evidence.
6.           Written arguments were not submitted neither by the complainant nor the OPs. The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant never made any request neither verbal or written for disconnection of the said mobile phone number. She was paying the bills regularly and there was no default on the payment side also. On 05.11.2014, the company confirmed from the complainant that whether she wanted to discontinue the phone number.  In reply to that also the complainant told the company that she wanted to continue the number thus the number was not disconnected. But after few days the number was disconnected without any request or reason. There was no default in payment. No reply of the legal notice was received. It amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus pleaded for acceptance of the complaint.
7.           The Ld. counsel for  OP No.2 to 4 argued that based upon the written request submitted by the husband of the complainant, it was bonafide processing and the number being a post paid, the verification of the address was a mandatory procedure. The complainant was not residing at the given address at Jalandhar. The ld. counsel further pleaded that there was no deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus the complaint be dismissed.
8.           After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments, we find that there is merit in the submissions made by the Ld. counsel for the complainant. There was no request by the complainant neither orally on phone nor any written request for disconnection of the mobile phone number. There was no default in the payment of phone bills. The husband of the complainant had informed the company about change of address and to raise the bills at the new address. Even there was no request for disconnection from Mr. Krishan Pathak, father of the complainant, in whose name the mobile phone number was previously issued, when it was a pre-paid connection.
9.           We find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.2 to 4 in disconnecting the phone number of the complainant and hence we accept this complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 being the authorized dealer. He had no role in the disconnection of the phone number.  Thus OPs No. 2,3,and 4 are directed to pay Rs.3,000/-  as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.1,500/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Thereafter it will carry interest at the rate of 6% P.A.

10.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 11.03.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:14.03.2016                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                                                             President

 

(Veena Chahal)

Member

 

(A.B.Aggarwal)   

Member