Punjab

Sangrur

CC/400/2014

Inderpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Limited - Opp.Party(s)

RAMIT PATHAK

10 Mar 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                

                                       Complaint no. 400                                    

                                        Instituted on:  15.07.2014

                                                                            Decided on:    10.03.2015

 

Inderpal Singh Rai s/o Sh. Piara Singh resident of village Kelon( Sherwani Kot), Malerkotla, District Sangrur.   

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1.      Idea Cellular Limited, Registered Office, Sunam Towers, Plot No.18, Sector 11 Ghandhinagar through M.D./Chairman.

2.       Idea Cellular Limited, Circle Office, C-105, Phase VII, Industrial Area, Mohali, through its Circle Head.

3.     M/s Golden Gift House, Idea Point/Idea Store; Near Club Chowk, Malerkotla District Sangrur through its Prop./ owner/authorized signatory.   

      ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Ramit Pathak, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.1&2:Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate                     

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3    :     Exparte                    

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Inderpal Singh Rai, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that  he obtained a mobile connection number 98554-62927 from the OPs in the year 2004. On 28.03.2014, the OPs disconnected said mobile connection without any prior notice/information. The complainant immediately approached the OP no.3 and official of the OP No.3 demanded the documentary proof regarding the identity of the complainant which were provided by the complainant on the spot but the connection of the complainant was not activated. The complainant approached the OP No.3 regarding the activation of his mobile connection so many times and ultimately the connection of the complainant was restored/ reactivated on 25.04.2014 after a long period of 28 days.  Due to disconnection the complainant had suffered a lot of mental agony  and humiliation as the complainant is a leading practicing advocate at Civil Courts, Malerkotla. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.80,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment,

ii)     OPs be also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs No.1&2, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability and cause of action have been taken up.  On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had intentionally not disclosed the factum in the present that he was availing another mobile connection bearing No.98144-58927 in his name and had also failed to make the payment pertaining to the said connection.  It is further submitted that the mobile connection bearing number 98144-58927 was activated on the name of the complainant which was disconnected on 27.11.2012 due to non-payment of the bill of Rs. 2650.35 and as per the Telegraph Rules, the company was within its rights to disconnect the telephone connection of the complainant on account of non-payment of dues. It is further submitted that the mobile number 98554-62927 was reactivated on 24/04/2014 on the request made by the complainant to clear all his outstanding dues but till date, the complainant has not deposited the outstanding amount of his earlier number. The disconnection was due to the complainant’s own fault, for which the complainant has not right to blame the OPs. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents  Ex. OPs1&2/1 to Ex.OPs 1&2/6 and closed evidence.

4.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the documents placed on record, we find that the complainant is consumer of the OPs as he has obtained a connection number 98554-62927 of the OPs. The said connection remained disconnected from 28.03.2014 to 25.04.2014 and the same was reactivated after a period of 28 days  without any reason.

5.             The version of the OPs No.1 and 2 is that the complainant had also used a mobile connection number 98144-58927 which was disconnected  by OPs No.1 and 2 due to non-payment of Rs.2650.35 as the said bill was unpaid.. So, as per terms and condition of the Customer’s Application Form (CAF), the OPs No.1 and 2  had rightly disconnected  the mobile connection of the complainant. The OPs No. 1 and 2 have also submitted in their written reply that since there is special remedy  provided in S-7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act  regarding disputes in respect of telephones, so the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The OP no.3 has preferred to remain exparte despite service.

6.             In support of his version the complainant has submitted the payment receipts of the bills of the mobile connection number 98554-62927 and same have been paid in time. Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 has argued that since a sum of Rs.2650.35 was still out standing  against the complainant  on account of his previous mobile connection number 98144-58927, so new mobile connection  number 98554-62927  of the complainant was disconnected and in support of their version the OPs No.1 and 2 have also placed document Ex.OPs 1&2/2 which is a bill dated 01.05.2014 for Rs.2650.35 but on perusal of the same we do not find any mention of any mobile number on this document. So, in the absence of any mobile number on this document we are unable to ascertain as to which  mobile connection  this bill belongs.

7.             Further, the OPs  No.1 and 2 have placed on record document Ex.OPs1&2/3  in which under the head Charges and Payments, it has been mentioned at 3.6 that “ the subscriber shall pay the service charges as per the monthly billing statement on or before the due date mentioned in such statement, failing which the company shall charge interest on all outstanding sum as may be applicable as late payment charges. The company is also entitled to discontinue the services with prior intimation and/or notice at its sole discretion, in addition to and without prejudice to any other remedies available. ”  But in the present complaint the OPs No.1 and 2 had not sent any prior intimation and/or any notice to the complainant, so the act of the OPs No.1 and 2 is contrary to the terms and conditions of their own document Ex.OPs 1&2/3.

8.             Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and2 has cited a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Special Leave to Appeal ( civil) No.(s) 24577/2010  namely  Prakash Verma Vs.  Idea Cellular Ltd. & Another in  which  it has been held that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred”. But in the Govt. of India notification dated 14.02.2014 it has been mentioned that “ powers of the telegraph authority have neither  been  vested  nor are applicable  to private telegraph services and BSNL. So, it is clear that Idea Cellular is now not a telegraph authority and it cannot draw on power of authority conferred by the rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules 1951.

9.             In the present complaint the OPs No.1 and 2 have unilaterally disconnected the connection of the complainant without giving  any due notice and if even the dues are not paid it is required to act within the ambit of the cannon of natural justice and to give reasonable prior notice before disconnecting  the connection whether partial by barring certain facilities or in the totality, unless there is any such empowering clause/ agreement between the parties.

10.           So, from the facts  mentioned above, the OPs No.1 and 2 by disconnecting  the mobile number 98554-62927 of the complainant are not only deficient in service but have also indulged in unfair trade practice. So, accordingly we allow the complaint and direct the OPs No.1 and 2 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/-  being the amount of compensation on account of mental tension, agony and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-  being the amount of litigation expenses.  

11.           This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.  

                Announced

March 10, 2015

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)           ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                

    Member                 Member                          President

 

 

BBS/-