DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA 

                                                          RBT/Consumer Complaint No.172 of 2018

                                                          Date of institution: 13.03.2018

                                                          Date of Decision: 19.05.2022

Manjit Singh Sethi aged about 51 years, son of Tarlok Singh Sethi, resident of 538, S No.11, Harcharan Nagar, Ludhiana 

….Complainant

Versus

1. Idea Cellular Limited, C 105, Industrial Area, Phase VII, Mohali 160055, Punjab through its authorized signatory
2. Idea Cellular Limited Idea Store, Ground Floor, 5024/4, Sobti Complex, Baba Thaan Singh Chowk, Ludhiana, through its authorized signatory

                                                                          ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

Quorum:     Shri Ranjit Singh, President.

                             Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member

Present:       Sh. Manjit Singh Sethi, complainant in person 

Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate. For OP1

OP no.2 exparte  

Order dictated by :-  Shri Ranjit Singh, President 

Order

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant previously hired the services of the opposite parties for availing mobile services for domestic and daily need uses against post plan Idea Plan 199 and regularly paying the consumption charges bills on receiving bills at his email address. Complainant received the bill dated 8.2.2018, against monthly charges of Rs.389/-  and after counting discount, opposite parties claimed bill due amount of Rs.361.63/- by its due date 23.2.2018. Further being non satisfied with the services provided by the opposite parties such like non availability of services properly and frequently disconnection (network missing) and after receiving excessive bills and despite of lodging various requests, finally being aggrieved with the bill amount as well as acknowledge the facts that opposite parties changed the plan Idea Plan 199 to Nirvana 389 illegally etc and without knowledge and consent of the complainant and despite of lodging protest at 198 no action so far taken by the opposite parties then complainant got port his mobile connection with airtel w.e.f. 17.2.2018. It is further alleged that on 10.2.2018, Shubjit Singh son of complainant visited opposite party No.2 for waiver of excess bill amount etc. but instead of correct the illegal bill amount, services were disconnected by the opposite parties without information and notice if any then again lodging protest at 198, dealing official advised to visit opposite party No.2 along with copy of adhar card and without submitting copy of adhar card and written request for change of plan, opposite parties to refused to activate the services. Under compelling circumstances, due to non availability of services, complainant submitted the copy of adhar card along with hand written request to opposite party No.2 for deactivate the plan changed without permission and requested opposite parties to keep the 199 plan but instead to do the finally needful, opposite parties compelled the complainant to pay the outstanding dues of Rs.400/- which were paid to the opposite party No.2 but no receipt was generated by opposite party No.2 due to problem in printer. Despite of making such payment of Rs.400/- services were not restored on the objections that services has been closed that said connection has been changed to prepaid from post paid and can only be activated on submitting thumb impression against adhar number. As there is urgent need of services, my son submitted his thumb impression as advised by dealing official but despite of this, services were reactivated then again visiting opposite party No.2 new sim was released by the OP2 and further request for waiver was also registered by the opposite party No.1,which was received at email on 10.2.2018 at 4.34 PM with the assurance that same would be auctioned by but regarding other request bearing No.C1-106954664240 for prepaid to post paid services, no response was communicated by the opposite parties and thereafter only incoming calls services are restored at 6.15 PM on 10.2.2018 but still complainant was not allowed to made the outgoing calls.  The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

1. To refund the excess amount paid by the complainant to the OPs
2. To pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the complainant in the interest of justice.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. 

2. Upon notice, the OP No.2 has choosen to remain exparte vide order dated 11.06.2018.
3. Upon notice, the O.P. No.1 has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is vexatious, baseless, misconceived and is an abuse of process of law; that this Hon’ble Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint; that the present complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had himself requested for the porting out of the number on 09.02.2018 and a UPC code was generated. The OP1 changed the tariff plan on the number 9814529722 of the complainant of Nirvana 389 on 08.01.2018. The change of tariff plan was done by the opposite party No.1 as per guidelines and as per the agreed terms and condition of the customer application form.  Rest of allegations leveled by the complainant have been denied by the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.  The complainant has tendered various documents in the shape of evidence. On the other hand, the OP1 has also tendered certain documents in the shape of evidence. 
5. We have heard learned counsel for the contested parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.
6. Before going to the merits of the case, all objections raised by the Ops are irrelevant and the complaint is maintainable and this Commission was having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.
7. Now the against the pleadings and evidence of the OPs, it is necessary to gone through the exhibited documents to find out the truth as pleaded by the complainant in its complaint. Ex.OP1 is the copy of adhaar card of the complainant with written request dated 10.2.2018 to keep the plan as 199. Said document as Ex.C14 also relied upon by the complainant. Further Ex.OP2 is seems to be generated document to defend the complaint only because in Ex.OP2, date, month and year  on 1^st page is mentioned as 10.02.2018 and at page below of the 1^st page said date, month and year is mentioned 2018.02.10 but 2^nd page (last page of OP2) said date, month and year is mentioned 02.10.2018 and further against the Idea Employee details activating Sim Card, it is mentioned as Name System Approved, Designation Not applicable.
8. Now further at 1^st page of Ex.OP2 under the head POS Declaration and details in Sr No.a) it is mentioned that i/we are certify that sim card has been handed over to the concerned customer only. For MNP, I have matched the UPC which originated from 1901 but the head MNP details all columns are empty.
9. So, case of genuine application form, same is required to show the date, month and year and timing and web page details of downloading from the website of Idea. There is no attention of authority person of the OPs to verifying the same. In Ex.OP3 & Ex.OP4 (at the beginning of OP3 & OP4 very small words not easily readable) along with details of employees but it appears the same is also got printed from computer and same is also without any attestation by competent authority. However, OP3 relates to now connection and no name of the complainant and mobile number therein. Period shown in OP3 is from 06.01.2017 to 10.02.2018 as such, it is not relates to the complainant.
10. Ex.OP4 is the message timestamp from the date to 2018.07.10 relates to 9814529722 of the complainant meant for porting, purpose under the head transaction type. Said messages are shown from 12.2.2018 to 16.2.2018 whereas in para No.12 of its reply, OP stated that the date of request for porting as 09.2.2018, which is nowhere reflected in Ex.OP4 but said request is shown as dated 12.2.2018 in OP4 whereas OPs are silent to the main dispute regarding their competency on change of plan 199 to Nirwana 389 without consent of consumer/complainant.
11.  Further OPs have not filed any record/evidence contrary to the Ex.C7, Ex.C13, Ex.C15 and Ex.C18 as issued by them against the online complaint/email complaints lodged by the complainant. Regarding Ex.OP5 & Ex.OP6, it is found that opposite parties in para 13 of reply to para 13 of the complaint relied upon Ex.OP5 & Ex.OP6 which erather supports the complaint of the complainant. Ex.OP6 is application form showing date 6 March 02 although not disputed by the complainant but same has no relevancy with the present dispute involved in the complaint. Regarding terms and conditions although same are not visible but from the contents of para 13 of the reply, same are rather duly applicable on the OP but OP itself violated such terms and conditions of CAF (OP6) because it is clearly disclosed that company reserves the right to withdraw any such rate plan and/or to revive the rates and charges applicable to such plans as per TRAI guidelines but there is no guidelines for changing the one plan to other plan.
12.  It is important to mention here that the OP changed the plan of the complainant without any prior notice or intimation and on representation by the complainant. Further, OP nowhere disclosed the material and relevant guidelines of TRAI meant for change of plan 199 to Nirwana 389 because under para 2 (v, vi and vii) of Ex.OP5 is speaking of change of plan by the subscriber as per his own wishes whereas in the present complaint OP without wishes and without any request of the subscriber itself changed the plan 199 to plan Nirwana 389. Complainant made request for portability only when OP failed to keep the plan as 199 and disconnected the services hence, OP rendered deficient/negligent services.
13.  So, in view of the above discussion and after going through the pleadings and evidence of both the parties, we feel, that the present complaint deserves to be allowed. The OPs are directed to refund the excess amount paid by the complainant to the Ops. The Ops is further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.  The O.Ps. are also directed to comply with the order jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

Announced

May 19, 2022

                                                                                                             (Ranjit Singh)

                                                    President

                                     (Ranvir Kaur)

                                         Member

CC No.172 of 2018

PRESENT:  Sh. MS Sethi, complainant in person

Sh. Harvinderpal Singh, Adv. for OP1

OP2 exparte

                Arguments completed. Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands allowed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

May,19 2022

(Ranjit Singh)

(Ranvir Kaur)