Haryana

Ambala

CC/13/2016

Balram - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager Telephonee - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Apr 2016

ORDER

                                    BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:

                                                                                             AMBALA

 

                     Complaint Case No.        :      13  OF 2016

                     Date of Institution         :      01-01-2016

                     Date of Decision            :      04.04.2016

Balram Dhiman son of Sh. Puran Chand, resident of village Rattanheri, P.O. Pilkhani, Distt. Ambala.

:::::::Complainant.

                                  Versus

 

1.            General Manager Telephones, Ambala Cantt.

2.            Satya Dev Sharma, SDO, Telephones, Ambala Cantt.

 

:::::::Opposite Parties.

 

       Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:        SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                     SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

 

Present:-        Complainant in person

                     Sh. Trilochan Singh, TTA on behalf of OPs .

             

O R D E R

 

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is consumer of opposite party since he is holding the mobile No.94164-33838 issued by OPs and is paying the consumption charges regularly to the OPs. Due to defect in the SIM, complainant approached OP No.2 for providing new SIM at which OP No.2 told that NEW SIM of this number can be given  only as POST PAID  subject  to security deposit of Rs.500/- which the complainant deposited & completed the formalities by filling up the form and submitting I.D. etc. where NEW SIM was issued by OP’s and told that the same will be activated after 24 hours i.e. on 24.11.2015. Thereafter complainant waited for its activation for two days and again visited the office of the OP where he was asked to deposit Rs.800/- more, then this sim can be activated being fancy number but the complainant  never approached for a fancy number as alleged. This action of the opposite party  is fradulant one in order to cheat the complainant & the innocent consumers which is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As such, having no alternative, complainant has preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

 

2.          Upon notice  OPs appeared  before the forum and filed their written version stating therein that originally complainant was allotted mobile no.9416433838 by OP and the same was disconnected permanently on 21-11-2014 i.e. one year ago and now complainant requested the OP on 23/11/2015 to activate this mobile no. under post paid plan whereupon they suggested the complainant  about the charges regarding post-paid  mobile plan qua deposit of Rs.500/- towards security which is refundable or adjustable after the disconnection , Rs.20/- for blank sim and Rs.859/- towards fancy mobile No. as the same comes under the category of fancy number as per our rules. Accordingly a blank sim was issued to complainant on the same day at the deposit of Rs.500/-. However, on checking of documents, OPs found that complainant has not deposited requisite fee of Rs.859/- for the said number so the OPs advised the complainant either to deposit Rs.859/- or your security amount of Rs.500/- alongwith SIM charges will be refunded and thus there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint being frivolous one.

 

3.           To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1  & C-2  and closed his evidence. Whereas OP’s representative has tendered documents as Annexures R-1 to R-3 into their evidence to rebut the contention of complainant.

 

4.         After perusal of documents Annexures C-1 and C-2 placed on record by complainant, it is crystal clear that the complainant himself applied for the post paid mobile connection bearing no.94164-33838 to OP afresh by depositing a new security amount of Rs.500/- as the said number was de-activated about a year ago whereas on perusal of documents Annexure R-I to R-3 placed on record by OPs, it reveals that OPs have rightly demanded an  amount of Rs.859/- qua Mobile No.94164-33838 ending with  AB AB as per instructions dated 17/5/2012 (Annexure R-2) of OP Department which the complainant has failed to deposit rather filed the present complaint to escape from said deposit. Moreover, during the course of proceedings of case, OP has refunded the security amount of Rs.520/- vide cheque bearing No.356488 dated 1-3-2016 as goodwill gesture of their department and thus the OP’s are not deficient in any way.

                 In view of the facts discussed above, the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case and thus we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. As such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced: 04.04.2016                                            sd/-            

                                                                        ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

                                     Sd/-

                        ( PUSHPENDER KUMAR )

                                             MEMBER