DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no 466/2013
Date of Institution 08/07/2013
Order Reserved on 27/07/2017
Date of Order 28/07/2017
In matter of
Mr. Khan Mohd., adult
S/o Sh. Anwar Khan
r/o- 53, Ganesh Park
Rashid Market, Geeta Colony Delhi 110051.………...…………….Complainant
Vs
M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.
383/13, East Azad Nagar, Nr LML show Room
Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110051….…….…………………………………………Opponent
Quorum Sh Sukhdev Singh President
Dr P N Tiwari Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant, had Airtel mobile connection, but due to lucrative offer on his mobile from Idea call centre, ported his connection from Airtel to Idea and purchased pre paid Idea connection SIM card vide no. 89910475121210984310 having cash memo no. 974 dated 25/03/2013 for a sum of Rs 25/-annexed as Ex CW1/1. It was assured for a monthly rent of Rs 199/pm with 600 local and STD calls 400 SMS facility free. The new Idea SIM was activated from 05/04/2013. It was stated that from 10/05/2013 his mobile services were stopped without giving notice or monthly bill. After inquiring, he paid the amount Rs 250/- and services were started. Again from 24/05/2013, his mobile services were stopped. After inquiry, it was told that he had not paid the bill and outstanding due were present where his monthly rent was Rs 199/-as annexed monthly bills copy as Ex CW1/2 to 6.
Realizing illegal and unlawful services with unfair trade practice of OP, complainant suffered harassment and mental agony to Rs 10,000/- filed this complaint claiming compensation for harassment Rs 10,000/- and NOC from OP for changing services to another with litigation charges RS 10,000/-.
OP submitted written statement denying all the allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services. It was stated that complainant had no idea of pre paid and post paid connection from OP. The annexed zerox of monthly bills itself showed that his connection was post paid not a pre paid connection as claimed. No monthly bills were issued in pre paid connection. OP had given call limits every month, but complainant neither paid in due time nor full amount. It was stated that whenever outstanding dues were present, incoming and outgoing call services stopped. All such services were in accordance to Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. OP started connectivity services as soon as part payment was received from complainant, but could not continue their services in persisting dues. So, complainant did not pay outstanding bill of Rs 831/- and if dues were not cleared in 90 days, re activation of same number could not be possible.
More so, it was stated that cause of action arose at Janakpuri, Delhi so this Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint which was contrary to Section 11(2) of The Consumer Protection Act. It had also been stated that complainant had raised deficiency in service disputes in mobile connectivity; such issues were again out of preview of this Forum as per Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
OP had referred o the citation of Hon. Supreme Court in “General Manager, Telecom vs M Krishnan & others, 2009 CPJ 1062, where it was laid down regarding Sec. 7B of Indian Telegraph Act where telephone bill and service issues were present remedy under The Consumer Protection Act was barred. Similar law was laid down in “Prakash Verma vs Idea Cellular Ltd.” by Honble Supreme Court. The NCDRC had also upheld the order of District Forum where complaint was dismissed on such issues in “Lokesh Parashar vs Idea Cellular & others”, RP no. 3780/2011. Hence, it was prayed that there was no deficiency in the service of OP nor any unfair trade practice was adopted against the complainant. So this complaint may be dismissed.
Complainant filed his rejoinder with evidence on affidavit and affirmed on oath that all facts in his complaint were correct and true. Complainant had also submitted one citation of CDRF Ferozpur as Vipin Sharma vs Bharti Airtel Co. ltd in CC no. 394/2010 where the issue of complainant was pertaining to unauthorized activation of SMS alerts and OP was charging Rs 3/ per day which was against the consent of complainant and OP was directed to refund with penalty was directed.
OP also submitted their evidence on affidavit through Mr Puneet Tripathy, AR of OP and re affirmed that all the contents submitted in their written statement and evidences were correct and true in reference to the judgments of Apex court and OP were never deficient in their services. Hence, present complaint may be dismissed.
For arguments, number of opportunities was given to complainant through notices, but did not put his appearance or submitted his written arguments. Arguments were heard from OP counsel and file was perused and order was reserved.
By going through all the facts and evidences on record, we have opined that complainant’s case was pertaining to portability from Airtel to Idea and in his complaint and his connection was disconnected due to nonpayment of monthly bill irrespective of enhancement of credit limit by OP. Hence, citations on record does not apply to this case as neither service related dispute was present nor unfair trade practice element was seen in the service of OP.
So, we come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merits and deserve to be dismissed, so dismissed without cost.
The copy of order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.
(Dr) P N Tiwari Member Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh President
