Delhi

North East

CC/275/2023

Sh. Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Head Of Airtel - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 275/23

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Kuldeep Singh S/o Sh. Mahipal Singh R/o H.No. C 4/199, Meet Nagar, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.             3.                     3.3.	Head of Airtel Through its Director/Manager BhartiCresent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi-110070   Phone pay Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director/ Manager Office at:- 2, Floor 4,5,6,7, Wing A, Block A, SalarpuriaSoftzone, Service Road, Green Glen Layout Bellandur, Bangalore 560103   Bank Manager Canara Bank, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006	Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

1. The case of the Complainant is that on 29.09.23 Complainant’s mobile phone sim no. 9560735561 was stolen from his residence. Thereafter, Complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1 to request for suspension of services for sim card of stolen mobile phone which was registered in name of Complainant and Opposite Party No.1/customer care representative refused to suspend the services of sim card of Complainant and told that there is no data match, even though the Complainant purchase the said sim provided his biometric Aadhar authentication. On 30.09.23 Complainant also visited airtel store in Meerut, UP and they also refused to suspend the services stating that the sim card was registered in Delhi. On 30.09.23 Complainant again contacted Opposite Party No.1/customer care of airtel and they agreed to suspend sim card service. The Complainant stated that even after the suspension of the sim, transaction of Rs. 1 lakh was deducted by the Opposite Party No.2/ phonepay and again on 02.10.23 Rs. 1 lac also deducted from the bank account of Complainant’s father.  On 04.10.23 Complainant filed an FIR regarding the theft vide no. 0663/2023 dated 04.10.23 at PS Jyoti Nagar Delhi. The Complainant stated that during the period when sim card was active, Rs. 3 lakhs transactions made from Complainant’s father account on different dates which was linked from mobile no. of stolen phone registered with Opposite Party No.2. On 03.10.23 Complainant visited Opposite Party No.3 bank regarding the deduction of Rs. 3 lakhs account no. 90412010060386 which was in the name of Complainant’s father but Opposite Party No.3 refused the same and told Complainant that it is legal matter we cannot do in this matter. The Complainant also filed complaint dated 06.10.23 in cyber crime vide acknowledge no. 20810230077127 and on dated 07.10.23 vide acknowledge no. 20810230077696. The Opposite Party No.1 immediately not suspended the sim card services despite repeated requests and Opposite Party No. 3 also refused investigation requested by Complainant for unauthorised transaction made from his father’s account. Hence, there is deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party.
2. After going through the documents enclosed by the Complainant along with his complaint, it is found that he did not file any document pertaining to mobile no. issued to him by the Opposite Party No.1 and also any request for suspension of sim as alleged by him. He did not file any document with regard to he is a consumer of Opposite Party No.2. He filed only copy of FIR registered with Cyber Crime Incident regarding online financial fraud and copy of FIR with Jyoti Nagar Police Station with regard to theft of mobile phone.
3. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Civil appeal No. 7289 of 2009 titled as The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & ANR Vs. R. Chandramohandated 27.03.2023 it is held that:-

“The Proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act.”

 

4. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion, the present case is involving criminal offence. Therefore, we did not see any ground to admit the complaint. The complaint is dismissed.
5. Order announced on 26.10.23.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)          Member

(Adarsh Nain)       Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)            President