BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 88 of 2015
Date of Institution : 1.5.2015
Date of decision : 28.2.2017
Nonihal Singh son of Shri Ajit Singh, resident of Shakti Nagar, Barnala Road, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Authorized Collection Centre, Customer care centre, having its office at Circular Road, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.
2. Idea Cellular Ltd (Corporate Office), 3rd and 5th Floor, Windsor Building, Santacruz East, Off. CST Road, Near Vidyanagri, Kalina Mumbai- 400098.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA …………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
OP no.1 already exparte.
Sh. S.K. Puri, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of complainant in brief is that he is having mobile connection bearing No.8607800013 of Idea company which has been purchased by him against the payment of requisite charges. The said connection is the post paid connection and complainant has been making payment of bills issued by op no.1 being the customer care/ collection office of idea company. The complainant made payment of Rs.600/- against the bill issued by ops vide receipt dated 23.10.2014. It is further alleged that inspite of the payment of the bill, the ops have disconnected the service facility of the said connection without any fault and wrong on the part of complainant. The complainant approached the ops time and again and requested them for restoration of the connection but the ops failed to do so and put off the complainant on one pretext or the other. Besides all above wrong doing on their part, the complainant has also come to know that the ops have further transferred/ allotted the said connection of complainant in favour of some other person without the consent and permission of the complainant and without issuance of any show cause notice to complainant. In fact the complainant has been using the said connection for the long period and has been making payment of the bills, hence the ops by way of allotting the said connection to some other one else have rendered themselves for the commission of offence of cheating and forgery under the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the ops have issued the said connection to some one else only after getting illegal gratification. It is further alleged that inspite of depositing the amount of Rs.600/- on 23.10.2014, the ops have failed to redress his grievance and also failed to restore the mobile services to the complainant for which he is entitled to compensation of Rs.90,000/- from ops for causing unnecessary loss to him. The complainant also got issued a legal notice upon op no.1 on 14.2.2015 which has been intentionally refused. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 appeared through counsel but did not file any written statement despite availing several opportunities including last opportunity and therefore, its right for filing written statement was closed. Ultimately none appeared on behalf of op no.1 and was proceeded against exparte.
3. OP no.2 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. On merits, the contents of complainant that complainant was the subscriber of mobile number 8607800013 and that complainant deposited Rs.600/- on 23.10.2014 have been admitted. It has been submitted that it is
pertinent to mention here that the services were disconnected on 30.9.2014 much prior to the deposition of the above said amount. The complainant suffered due to his own misdeeds by not depositing the payment in time which led to the disconnection of services. The complainant was duly informed about the reason of disconnection and was requested to submit the required documents again to resume the services. As per the guidelines once the number is disconnected one has to submit the documents again alongwith customer application form but the complainant chose not to submit the relevant documents due to which the number was issued to other party on 8.12.2014. The answering op company acted as per the guidelines and disconnected the services due to non payment. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
4. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of receipt Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4 and registered envelope Ex.C5. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit Ex.R1, bill Ex.R2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. According to the opposite party no.2, the connection of the complainant was already disconnected on 30.9.2014 i.e. much prior to payment of Rs.600/- by the complainant which was made only on 23.10.2014 after disconnection. It is further the stand of the op no.2 that as per guidelines once the number is disconnected one has to submit the documents again alongwith customer application form but the complainant did not submit the relevant documents due to which the number was issued to other party on 8.12.2014. The complainant has failed to prove that he submitted the relevant documents to the op no.2 for restoration of connection well in time. Even the affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 is almost repetition of contents of the complaint and he has not controverted the stand of the op no.2 in his affidavit also. As such, complainant has failed to prove his case and is not entitled to restoration of his connection as same has already been issued to some other person due to non submission of relevant documents in time.
7. Resultantly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:28.2.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
