| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 576 of 09-09-2014 Decided on : 30-09-2015 Navdeep Singla S/o Ramesh Kumar Singla R/o J B Automobiles, Near Fauzi Chowk, Bathinda. …...Complainant Versus Idea Cellular Ltd., 105, Industrial Area, Phase 7, Mohali through its Regional/Area Manager Area Manager, Idea Cellular Store, Shop No. 9, The Mall, Sargam Cinema Complex, Bathinda. M/s. Shree Ganesh Telecom Services, Pirkhana Road, Bathinda, through its Prop.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member Present : For the Complainant : Sh. Vipin Sharma, counsel for complainant. For the opposite parties : Sh. David Sadiora. counsel for OP No. 1. OPs No. 2 & 3 exparte. O R D E R M. P. Singh Pahwa, President This complaint has been filed by Navdeep Singla, complainant under Section 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Idea Cellular Ltd., and others (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties'). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he deals with the business of tractor spare parts under the name and style of M/s. J B Automobiles, Bathinda. Most of his business is done on mobile. He receives order on mobile from various counter parts and this business is for his livelihood. It is pleaded that for the purpose of communication, he had taken services of Vodafone Mobile Operator but the signal/range of Vodafone mobile company was not proper in that area, due to which he was suffering loss. About 1-1/4 months ago, the sales boy of opposite party No. 3 i.e. Shree Ganesh Telecom Services, Bathinda, came to his shop. He requested the complainant to obtain the services of Idea Company. The complainant told the opposite party No. 3 that they have already five mobile connections of Vodafone company but the services of Vodafone company is not upto the mark due to which his business is suffering a lot. The sales boy namely Baljit Singh again came to the shop of complainant alongwith Sales Manager namely Harsh. They assured the complainant that the services of Idea Mobile Operator is best comparatively to other mobile service providers. The complainant was also assured that they will solve his problem regarding services, if any, he faces, without any delay. It is pleaded that after going through pamphelets/advertisement etc., regarding services of the opposite parties and on getting assurance of officers of opposite parties No. 1 & 2, the complainant ported his five mobile connections from Vodafone to idea. These connections were ported in Idea by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The opposite party No. 3 played active and key role in doing so. It is mentioned that after getting connections ported in Idea, the complainant was shocked due to poor services and non-availability of network of the Idea in that area. The mobile connections of complainant could not work properly and always created problems due to which the purpose of porting the mobile service in Idea did not serve. The complainant spent most of his valuable time without availing the facility of mobile services. He lodged complaints with the opposite parties. On the request of the complainant, a team of the opposite parties visited his shop and checked the services of Idea and they also found that services of Idea Service Provider is not upto the mark. The consumers of Idea service providers are facing a lot. A team of Idea itself as well as through opposite party No. 3 assured the complainant that they are going to install/arrange tower or boost tower for improvement of services but did not bother the requests of the complainant. The complainant lodged many complaints with the opposite parties directly and also through opposite party No. 3, but to no effect. It is further alleged that on seeing negative attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant requested them to re-port his connection to Vodafone service provider but the opposite parties refused to do so and are forcing him to suffer for 90 days more. On this backdrop of facts, complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of loss in his business, pain, sufferings and mental harassment and Rs. 50,000/- as damages and cost of litigation. Upon notice, opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 & 3. Therefore, opposite parties No. 2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte. The opposite party No. 1 in its written version raised preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. That the complainant is not consumer. That complainant has suppressed material facts from this Forum. That the complainant has sought relief in his complaint against the alleged problems in the mobile connection (got ported by the complainant from Vodafone to Idea) but he has not explained the mobile connection numbers in his complaint. Without mentioning mobile connection numbers, it is not possible to plead that he is facing any alleged problems regarding some particular connections. That the complaint is liable to be dismissed for lack of proper pleadings. That the complaint is abuse of process of law and is totally vague and frivolous and has been filed to harass and humiliate the opposite parties. That no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the complaint without mentioning any mobile connection number. That complaint is filed without period of limitation. That complainant is barred by his own act and conduct. That the complaint is liable to be penalized under Section 26 of the 'Act'. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 controverted all the material averments and reiterated their stand as taken in preliminary objections and detailed above. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 which included his affidavits dated 4-9-2014 and 2-7-2015 (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-5) and photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-2). In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party No. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Manoj Madan dated 13-8-2015 (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopies of Forms (Ex. OP-1/2 & Ex. OP-1/3) and photocopy of terms and conditions (Ex. OP-1/4). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that although in complaint the details of mobile numbers was not mentioned but on the application moved by the opposite party for dismissal of complaint, the complainant has detailed mobile numbers also. The application moved by the opposite party was already dismissed vide order dated 5-5-2015. The opposite party has also produced documents regarding mobile numbers ported by the complainant. Therefore, complaint cannot be dismissed only for detail of mobile numbers. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that categorical stand of complainant is that opposite parties assured to look into the problem of the complainant regarding poor service but there is nothing on record to prove that any step has been taken by the opposite parties to solve the problem regarding net work in the shop of the complainant. The complaint cannot be dismissed only for the reason that now the complainant has got ported mobile numbers to another net work. The Forum is to determine the grievance of the complainant as were in existence at the time of filing of complaint. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submitted that before claiming any relief, complainant has to prove that he is consumer of the opposite party. There is no evidence to prove this fact. The complaint has been filed by Navdeep Singla mentioning resident of J B Automobiles, Near Fauzi Chowk, Bathinda. The complainant has nowhere pleaded that which particular connections were got ported. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that these particular connections were in his name. The opposite party has brought on record photocopies of documents Ex. OP-1/2 & Ex. OP-1/3. These documents prove that connections were in the name of J B Automobiles. The application regarding purchase of new Idea Connection was also moved by J B Automobiles through Ramesh Chand Singla. The document also prove that connections were in the name of J B Automobiles although there were different users for these connection. Therefore, J B Automobiles is consumer of the opposite party. No complaint has been filed by or on behalf of J B Automobiles. Complaint is liable to be dismissed for this reason also. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that complainant has not brought on record any other document to prove that there was any difficulty in network or he has suffered any loss. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions. Before claiming any relief, the complainant has to prove himself consumer of the opposite parties. The complaint has been filed by Navdeep Singla S/o Ramesh Kumar Singla. It is the case of the complainant that he has ported his five mobile connections from Vodafone to Idea Cellular. It is not the case of the complainant that these connection were in the name of J B Automobiles but no document has been brought on record by the complainant that he was having these connections in his name. The documents produced by the opposite party proves that all the connections were in the name of J B Automobiles through its Proprietor Ramesh Chand Singla. Therefore as per documents, J B Automobiles was consumer and not complainant Navdeep Singla. When the complainant has failed to prove himself as consumer of the opposite parties, he is not entitled to any relief. There is another aspect of the matter also. The complainant has alleged poor net work of the opposite parties in the area, but the complainant has not detailed the particular area where there was poor connectivity. The complainant has not brought on record any other evidence to prove poor network in the area of his shop. In the result, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 30-09-2015 (M.P.Singh Pahwa ) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh ) Member
| |
