THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 501 of 2014
Date of Institution : 11.9.2014
Date of Decision : 15.06.2015
Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Mohinder Singh R/o H.No. 4/1199, St. No.1, Judge Nagar, Near Subash Karyana Store, Post Office Khanna Nagar, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Idea Cellular Limited C-105, Industrial Area, Phase Mohali
Sh. Ganesh Telecom,SSSS Complex, Near Celebration Mall, Batala Road, Amritsar
Navyug Telecom, Circular Road, Kapurthala, Punjab
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Shakti Devgan,Advocate
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh.K.K.Thakur,Advocate
For opposite parties No.2&3: Ex-parte
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
-2-
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Vinod Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he obtained three connections from opposite party No.1 bearing No. 9914110618 , 7696013202 and 9803790195 For RCF Zero rent Corpn on 24.4.2012 . The complainant deposited security of Rs. 250/- for each connection to S.R. Communication, RCF Kapurthala. According to the complainant he has been making payments of the bills regularly and there is no default in making the payment of bills. On 18.7,.2014 opposite party No.1 sent a message to the complainant on all the mobile phones to resubmit the documents/identity proof, which the complainant deposited with the opposite party No.2 on the same day. But opposite party No.1 on 19.7.2014 deactivated all the aforesaid connections without any reason. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and they again provided three SIMS through opposite party No.3 for re-activation of the aforesaid numbers and it was assured that the said numbers will be re-activated without any charges. Thereafter complainant sent many e-mails to the opposite parties and the afroesaid connections were reactivated on 16.8.2014. But complainant was surprised to find that his plan has been changed from 0 rent to Rs. 200/- month rent for each numbers. The complainant then approached the opposite parties and requested them to start his plan which was originally taken by him on 24.4.2012, but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to start the original plan of the complainant which was taken on 24.4.2012 and not to charge rent of Rs. 200/- per month/connection . Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as per Department of Telecommunication, Govt. of India guidelines, it is mandatory for each and every customer to verify his identity and address of tele-verification and to clear the verification. It was submitted that in this case, the documents of the complainant were not as per guidelines issued by Department of Telecommunication and as such his number was barred and the same can be activated after the arrangement of fresh documents from the customer. The complainant submitted the documents on 18.7.2014 which were not according to the DOT guidelines due to which the complainant's numbers were deactivated. It was submitted that the complainant had tele-verified one of his number 9914110618 and the same has been activated but the other two numbers 9803790195 and 7696013202 have not been tele-verified by the complainant and thus have not been activated as per guidelines of DOT and as such the said two numbers 9803790195 and 7696013202 have been returned back to the parent operators . It was submitted that the numbers of complainant were erased from his name because the complainant had failed to submit necessary documents and due to this reason there was delay in activation of the connection. It was further submitted that due to that delay the plan under which the complainant's connections were running earlier was also lapsed and the plan does not exist and the opposite party is unable to activate the old plan. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.10.2014.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of service receipts Ex.C-2 to C-4, copy of bill Ex.C-5, copy of payment receipts Ex.C-6 and C-7, copies of e-mail Ex.C-7/A, C-8 and C-9.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Manoj Madaan, authorized signatory Ex.OP1, directions issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication Ex.OP2, guidelines issued by Ministry of Communication Ex.OP3.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.1 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant obtained three mobile connections from opposite party No.1 bearing No. 9914110618, 7696013202 and 9803790195 for RCF Zero rent CORP on 24.4.2012 by depositing Rs. 250/- for each connection to S.R. Communication, RCF Kapurthala i.e. being employee of RCF, Kapurthala. The complainant alleges that on 18.7.2014 opposite party No.1 sent message to the complainant on all the aforesaid mobile phones to resubmit the documents/identity proof of the complainant. Resultantly complainant submitted his proof of identity to opposite party No.2 on the same day. However, opposite party No.1 on 19.7.2014 deactivated all the aforesaid three connections of the complainant without any reason. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and they again provided three SIMS through opposite party No.3 to the complainant and assured that the aforesaid numbers will be reactivated without any charge/free of cost. The complainant also sent e-mail Ex.C-7/A ,C-8 and C-9 to the opposite parties in this regard. The aforesaid connections were reactivated by the opposite parties on 16.8.2014. However, the plan has been changed from zero rent to Rs. 200/- month rent for each numbers. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to start his original plan which was taken by the complainant on 24.4.2012 , but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Not only this the opposite parties kept the aforesaid mobile numbers closed for long period I.e from 19.7.2014 to 16.8.2014 without any reason. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. Whereas the case of opposite party No.1 is that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands rather concealed the true facts. Opposite party further submitted that as per the Department of Telecommunication (DOT),Govt.of India guidelines, it is mandatory for each and every customer to get verify his identity and address on tele-verification and to clear the doubts, if any. The documents of the complainant were not as per the guidelines issued by DOT. Till the time the subscriber is tele-verified, he cannot be permitted to make any call except to the operator. The complainant submitted the documents on 18.7.2014 which were not according to DOT guidelines. Resultantly the complainant's numbers were deactivated and the reason was also conveyed to the complainant. All this was done by the opposite party company for safety and security reasons. The complainant had tele-verified only one of his numbers i.e. 9914110618 and the same has been activated but the other two numbers 9803790195 and 7696013202 have not been tele-verified by the complainant and thus have not been activated as per guidelines of DOT and the said two numbers have been returned back to the parent operators i.e. to the opposite party company. Opposite party submitted that the complainant tele-verified the numbers on 4.8.2014, 6.8.2014 and 7.8.2014, as is evident from the record i.e. ID proof self attested by the complainant on the aforesaid dates. Not only this the complainant filled in the new application forms and that too with new plan as the plan with zero rent was not in existence at that time i.e. on 4.8.2014, 6.8.2014 and 7.8.2014 . So the complainant was issued mobile connection with plan available at that time and that too with the consent of the complainant as he filled in and signed the application forms for the new plan. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant had three mobile connections bearing No. 9914110618, 9803790195 and 7696013202 w.e.f 24.4.2012 being employee of RCF Kapurthala . As per guidelines of DOT, opposite party has to verify the ID proof as well as residence proof of the telephone connection holder . Rather the opposite party was bound to verify these facts otherwise heavy penalty has been imposed by the DOT vide instructions bearing No. 800-09/2010-VAS dated 9.8.2012 i.e. Rs. 50000/- per connection holder . So as per the aforesaid instructions, it is mandatory for each and every customer/connection holder to verify his identity and address on tele-verification and to clear the doubt, if any. The complainant was given message to verify his identity and address. The complainant submitted the documents on 18.7.2014 which were not according to DOT guidelines. The complainant himself has admitted that inadvertently he submitted old identity card from his employer i.e. RCF Kapurthala which had already expired. So it stands fully proved on record that the complainant submitted the identity/address proof on 18.7.2014 which was found to be not genuine as is evident from the details produced by the opposite party in which it has been mentioned that there was manipulation in name, father's name and address changed on POI/POA, fonts are different, hence not genuine/forged. Resultantly the opposite parties deactivated the aforesaid three mobile connections of the complainant on 19.7.2014. The complainant submitted that he deposited the fresh ID proof/address proof to the opposite parties on the same day i.e. 19.7.2014 but the opposite parties reactivated his aforesaid mobile connections on 16.8.2014 i.e. after a lapse of a period of about one month. But the complainant could not produce any evidence that he submitted the genuine ID proof and address proof to the opposite parties on 19.7.2014 rather the documents produced by the complainant regarding his identity and address proof itself speak that he submitted these documents i.e. ID/address proof on 4.8.2014, 6.8.2014 and 7.8.2014 as these documents have been self attested by the complainant on aforesaid dates on 4.8.2014, 6.8.2014 and 7.8.2014. Not only this , the complainant filled in and signed fresh application forms with new plan without zero rent as is evident from the application form duly filled in and signed by the complainant produced by the opposite party. Resultantly the mobile connections of the complainant were activated with new plan as the old plan with zero rent was not in existence at the time, the complainant applied for re-activation of his mobile connection. Not only this as per the record of the opposite parties, the complainant has tele-verified one of his three numbers i.e. No. 9914110618 and the same has been activated by the opposite parties, but the other two numbers have not been tele-verified by the complainant and thus have not been activated by the opposite parties as per guidelines of DOT and as per the guidelines of DOT the said two numbers 9803790195 and 7696013202 have been returned to the parent operators i.e. company from where the said numbers were quoted in to the opposite parties.
10. So from the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that opposite parties were justified in deactivating the aforesaid three mobile connections of the complainant on 19.7.2014 as the ID/residence proof given by the complainant was found not genuine and they activated the aforesaid connections of the complainant with new plan as the complainant submitted his fresh and genuine ID/address proof on 4.8.2014, 6.8.2014 and 7.8.2014 rather he got activated only one phone number and that too after filling in fresh application forms with new plan.
11. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
12. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
15.06.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
