DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.191 of 9.7.2007<br /> Decided on : 31.8.2007 <br /> <br /> Sandeep Kumar Jindal S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Jindal, C/o B.K. Cloth House, Railway Road, Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Hutchisson Essar South Ltd., C-131, Industrial Area, Phase VIII, Mohali through its Manager.<br /> 2.Hutch Care Centre, The Mall, Bathinda through its Manager.<br /> 3.Harminder Bhogal Watch House, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar through its Proprietor. ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Amrit Pal Singh, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Exparte <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. This complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to reactivate Sim No.89918800000 1132 80209 which is in his possession; block duplicate Sim forthwith to prevent its misuse; enquire the matter thoroughly regarding issuance of duplicate Sim; pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical sufferings and Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Briefly put, the case of the complainant is that prepaid Hutch connection was purchased by him from opposite party No.3. Connection No. 98881-02544 under Sim No. 89918800000 1132 80209 dated 15.1.2006 was released. Connection was reactivated with coupon of Rs. 2,000/- on 15.1.2006 with validity of two years from 15.1.2006 to 15.1.2008. Mobile connection was functioning properly without any interruption. On 24.4.2007, it stopped working. Mobile set started displaying on its screen Sim registration is failed. Opposite party No.2 was approached and informed about the problem. Its officials paid no heed. He (complainant) contacted Hutch Customer Care on telephone No. 111 from some other Hutch number. Officials of Hutch Customer Care checked the record of the mobile connection and informed him that connection is working properly. He was further told that if he has any problem, he should contact Hutch Customer Centre of his area. Accordingly, opposite party No. 2 was again approached to inquire about the connection. Officials informed him that connection is working properly on another duplicate Sim. They did not disclose from where duplicate Sim has been issued and to whom it has been issued. They did not disclose duplicate Sim No. Complainant made them aware that he has not lost his original Sim nor has he lodged any FIR in this regard. They were further told that he did not get issued duplicate Sim from any authorised dealer or Hutch Care Centre. Original Sim No. 89918800000 1132 80209 is still with him. His number is being used by some other person on the basis of the duplicate Sim and under his identity proof which is illegal. Opposite party No.2 was further requested to take appropriate action, but to no effect. He alleges that his connection has been illegally issued to another person by opposite party No.1 through some other authorised dealer without proper verification and proper identity proof at his cost. He is unable to use his connection and his facing great inconvenience. Person using his connection on the basis of the duplicate Sim may be indulging in some illegal activities at his cost and he may have to face consequences if that person is caught doing illegal activities by using his mobile number. He has not used his mobile connection w.e.f. 24.4.2007 till date. He is entitled to get the certificate issued to the effect that during this period the mobile connection has not been used by him. He got served legal notice upon the opposite parties on 7.6.2007 through his counsel. Opposite party No.3 sent reply asking him to approach opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Other parties did not send reply of the legal notice. It is further averred by him that due to the adamant attitude of the opposite parties, he has undergone physical and mental agony. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Notice to opposite party No.2 was taken by the Peon of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 refused to accept it. Registered A.D post notice was issued to opposite party No.3 which was received with the report of the postal authority that the addressee has refused to receive it. Accordingly, opposite parties No. 2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte. Registered A.D post notice was issued to opposite party No.1 on 19.7.2007. Neither registered cover nor A.D was received till 20.8.2007. Accordingly, opposite party No.1 has been deemed to have been duly served. No-one came present on its behalf. Hence, it has been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 4. In his exparte evidence, complainant has submitted his own affidavits Ex. C.1 and Ex.C.2, photocopy of Identity Card (Ex.C.3), photocopy of Sim Card (Ex.C.4), photocopy of backside of Identity Card (Ex.C.5), photocopy of letter dated 11.6.2007 (Ex.C.6), photocopy of legal notice dated 1.6.2007 (Ex.C.7) and photocopies of postal receipts (Ex.C.8 to Ex.C.10) respectively. <br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant.<br /> 6. Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 are the affidavits of the complainant in which he reiterates his version in the complaint. Complainant submitted identity proof by way of submitting copy of his identity card, copies of its front and back portions are Ex.C.3 & Ex.C.5 respectively. Hutch connection No. 98881-02544 was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.3. This connection under Sim No. 89918800000 1132 80209, copy of which is Ex.C.4, was released to him. Complainant got it activated with coupon of Rs.2,000/-. Validity period was two years. Complainant sent legal notice to the opposite parties through his counsel. Copy of it is Ex.C.7. Only opposite party No.3 sent reply through its counsel and copy of the same is Ex.C.6. Complainant was advised to contact opposite parties No.1 & 2. Evidence of the complainant including his affidavits in which he has reiterated his version in the complaint has gone unchallenged and unrebutted as opposite parties did not muster courage to contest the complaint. There is nothing before us on the basis of which this evidence can be disbelieved. From the evidence on the record, conclusion is that mobile connection No. 98881-02544 was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 3 with Sim referred to above. It had stopped functioning on 24.4.2007. Mobile set had started displaying on its screen Sim registration is failed. Opposite party No.2 when contacted did not pay any heed to the problem. Hutch Customer Care on his request informed that connection is working properly. As per direction of opposite party No.1, Hutch Customer Care, opposite party No.2 was contacted. Its officials told that connection is working properly on another duplicate Sim. They did not deem it fit to disclose from where duplicate Sim was issued to another person and who has issued it. Even duplicate Sim No. was not told. Complainant has not lost his original Sim nor has he lodged FIR with the police about its loss. It is evident from the record that duplicate Sim has not been got issued by him from any authorised dealer or Hutch Customer Care. Original Sim is in his possession. In these circumstances, it is clear that some other person under his identity proof is using the duplicate Sim for which opposite party No. 2 should take action which has not been taken. Use of duplicate Sim by some other person may cause complications to the complainant. Evidence of the complainant reveals that he has not used his mobile connection w.e.f. 24.4.2007 onwards and he is facing inconvenience. In these circumstances, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is writ large.<br /> 7. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to reactivate Sim of the complainant which is in his possession and to block the duplicate Sim forthwith to prevent misuse. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties must have caused mental agony and sufferings to the complainant for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 2,000/-. <br /> 8. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 9. In the premises written above, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Reactivate Sim No. 89918800000 1132 80209 of the complainant which is in his possession for his mobile connection No.98881- 02544.<br /> ( ii ) Block duplicate Sim being used in place of Sim No. 89918800000 1132 80209 of the complainant to prevent misuse.<br /> ( iii ) Pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the complainant under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( iv ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 10. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 31.8.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />