DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 263 of 06.09.2007<br /> Decided on : 16-01-2008 <br /> <br /> Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Amar Nath R/o Rampura Phul, Sole Prop. of Ankit Telecom, Near Canal Bridge, Phul Bus Stand, Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. <br /> <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Huthison Essar South Ltd., C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-8, Mohali, through its Authorised representative.<br /> 2.Huthison Essar South Limited, C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi through its M.D.<br /> 3.Surya Communication, Mall Godown Road, Near SBOP Bank, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda. ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. B.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite<br /> party No. 1 & 2.<br /> Opposite party No. 3 exparte.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to restore his DEMO connection for recharging the connections through Flexi; pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment and Rs. 5500/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Succinctly put the case of the complainant is that he is running shop under the name and style of M/s. Ankit Telecom, Rampura Phul for the purpose of earning his livelihood and the livelihood of his family. He had purchased DEMO No. 9988185510 for recharging the mobile connections having Sim No. 89918800000119181773 activated about 1-1/2 years back. He was recharging mobile connections through this DEMO. He was getting commission @ Rs. 2.75% against the sale of recharging. He had got the DEMO connection recharged with Flexi of Rs. 5000 which was purchased by him from opposite party No. 3 which charged Rs. 4862.50 after deducting his commission vide invoice No. 034 dated 22.8.07. DEMO was released in the name of his firm M/s. Ankit Telecom after obtaining complete documents from him including identity proof and after getting all the formalities completed as per rules and regulations. On 30.8.07, Nirmal Singh S/o Gurmail Singh, R/o Kothe Maha Singh Wala, Mehraj and Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Ranjit Singh, R/o Mehraj had come to his shop to get the mobile connections recharged. To his dismay, opposite parties blocked the services of the DEMO. It was not working. He is unable to recharge the mobile connections through DEMO although incoming and outgoing facility to the connection is still available. When opposite party No. 3 was approached and enquiry was made, he was apprised that he is not authorised to use the same. Amount of Rs. 4915/- is still lying as balance. He alleges that opposite parties were not competent to block the Flexi and DEMO connection. This was done illegally and arbitrarily. Opposite parties were requested to restore the connection but they paid no heed. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed their version taking preliminary objections that only the courts at Delhi has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complaint has not disclosed any cause of action; complainant has got no locus standi to file the complaint; it is false and vexatious and DEMO was being used for commercial purposes. On merits, their version is that DEMO Sims are distributed by the distributors to the retailers as it was allotted to the complainant by opposite party No. 3. In the present case, DEMO connection was issued in favour of one Raj Kumar. After they came to know about its misuse, DEMO facilities were withdrawn on the advice of opposite party No. 3. They admit the contents of para No.3. So far as the amount of Rs. 4915/- is concerned, it would be adjusted in the account of the complainant. He is still being allowed to use the normal mobile services from his mobile connection. The only commercial activity which was available to a business partner has been blocked. Complainant is not consumer. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. Registered A.D. post notice was issued to opposite party No. 3 on 17.9.07. Till 29.10.07 neither registered cover nor A.D. was received. Accordingly, opposite party No. 3 was deemed to have been duly served. No-one came present on its behalf. Accordingly, it has been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 5. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence three affidavits of S/Sh. Suresh Kumar, Nirmal Singh and complainant (Ex. C-1,Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3) respectively and photocopy of Invoice-cum-delivery challan (Ex. C-4).<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 affidavit of Sh. Ashutosh Kalia, Manager (legal) (Ex. R-1), photocopy of application form (Ex. R-2), photocopy of Voter Identity Card of Raj Kumar (Ex. R-3) and photocopy of Customer Declaration Form (Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written briefs of arguments on behalf of the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 & 2.<br /> 8. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the complainant are that the complainant had purchased DEMO No. 9988185510 for recharging mobile connections in his own name after completing all the formalities and submitting documents including his identity proof for the purposes of earning his livelihood. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have not denied the sale of the DEMO connection. They have illegally blocked the DEMO services to the complainant alleging that he was making unauthorised use of it although he was fully competent and authorised to use it. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In support of it, he drew our attention to the documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-4.<br /> 9. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 argued that DEMO connection was not taken by the complainant. Rather this DEMO connection was obtained by one Raj Kumar. Complainant was misusing this DEMO connection. Accordingly, services to the DEMO connection have been blocked. Complainant had recharge with Flexi of Rs. 5,000/-. He is being allowed to use his normal mobile services from his mobile connection and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. To support the submissions, reliance is placed on the documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-4.<br /> 10. We have considered the respective documents.<br /> 11. Purchase of recharge with Flexi of Rs. 5,000/- is not in dispute. Even otherwise Ex. C-4 is the copy of the receipt issued by opposite party No. 3 for Rs.4862.50. Affidavit of the complainant is that receipt for Rs. 4862.50 was issued after giving him commission out of Rs. 5,000/-. DEMO connection has been blocked by the opposite parties. Material question for determination is as to whether DEMO No. 9988185510 was purchased by the complainant for recharging the mobile connections. No doubt in the reply of the complaint, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have taken contradictory stand. In the preliminary objection No. 3 in the reply of the complaint, their plea is that DEMO connection was issued in favour of one Raj Kumar and after they came to know about its misuse, commercial facilities from SIM/connection have been withdrawn on the advice of opposite party No. 3. To the contrary in para No. 3 on merits in the reply of the complaint, they admit that DEMO was released to the complainant in the name of M/s. Ankit Telecom after obtaining complete documents and getting the formalities completed and that it was activated. In such a situation, it is for this Forum to elicit the truth. Party may tell lies but the documents cannot. So far as complainant is concerned, he has not placed and proved on record any document regarding the purchase of DEMO No. 9988185510. To the contrary, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have proved on record copy of the application form of Raj Kumar for purchase of this DEMO. He had also submitted his identity card for this purpose and copy of the same is Ex. R-3. Not to speak of this, copy of the Customer Declaration Form of Raj Kumar is Ex. R-4 for this Hutch No. 9988185510. Accordingly, complainant cannot claim facility of DEMO connection as a matter of right. If it was given by opposite party No. 3 i.e. distributor, to the complainant, complainant cannot claim its use as of right. Hence, opposite parties were well within their right to block the services of this DEMO. No doubt complainant has purchased/recharge of Rs. 5,000/- and amount of Rs. 4915/- is still lying as balance but this itself is no ground on the basis of which complainant can get the DEMO connection restored for the purposes of recharging the connections. He has himself admitted that incoming and outgoing facility to the connection is still working. In the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Ashotosh Kalia, Manager (Legal) of opposite party No. 1, it has been made clear that amount of Rs. 4915/- would be adjusted in the account of the complainant as he is still being allowed to use normal mobile services from his mobile connection. In these circumstances, when it does not stand established that DEMO connection was purchased by him, incoming and outgoing facility to his mobile connection for amount invested by him are being allowed, no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties are proved.<br /> 12. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 13. In the result, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 16-01-2008 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br />