Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 147.

                                                                    Instituted on     : 09.04.2018.

                                                                    Decided on       : 03.04.2019.

Surender Kumar (Advocate) son of Sh. Somnath, Resident of VPO Subhri, Post Office Rajo Kheri, District Ambala, Mob-8872997999.                                                                                                                                                                                                 ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

The Manager Idea Cellular, Near Liberty Cinema, Bajrang Bhawan, Rohtak.

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Rinku Jangra, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased one SIM card vide mobile No. 9812468328 from Rohtak and the complainant was provided lifetime incoming facility through respondent agents. It is alleged that complainant’s SIM card was blocked by the respondent without any intimation. The complainant through his counsel send one legal notice dated 19.03.2018, but in vain. That the act of opposite party is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such, it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay amount of Rs.5,000/- as harassment and also to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply submitted that the services of mobile number was disconnected with the prior intimation through SMS in the month of December, 2017. It is pertinent to mention that the services of the mobile of the complainant were disconnected due to non usage for 90 days. The services were disconnected as per the guidelines issued by the TRAI vide Notification dated 21.02.2013 vide sixth amendment of Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations, 2013. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 04.12.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence on dated 07.03.2019.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that it has nowhere mentioned in the complaint that on which date the services of the mobile were stopped. Regarding this fact no detail has been mentioned by the complainant in his affidavit also. Simply he has stated that on 09.03.2018  he issued a legal notice through his counsel and no reply was received. In his evidence, complainant has placed on record copy of legal notice  Ex.C1 and copy of postal receipt Ex.C2. On the other hand, respondent as per para no.3 of its reply has stated that the services were disconnected as per the guidelines issued by the TRAI vide Notification dated 21.02.2013 vide sixth amendment of Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations, 2013. Services of mobile number were stopped with the prior intimation through SMS in the month of December, 2017 due to non usage of mobile for 90 days.

6.                          On the other hand, complainant has placed on record a copy of CWP No.12889 of 1996 of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh in case titled as Bahadur Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others. Through this CWP, complainant wants to prove that if the respondent failed to disclose the date of disconnection, adverse inference can be drawn against the respondent.

7.                          After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the alleged case law is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as the complainant himself has failed to prove the date of disconnection of his sim card and hence failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

8.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

03.04.2019

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          …………………………………

                                                          Ved Pal, Member.

                                                                        ………………………………..

                                                                        Renu Chaudhary, Member.