IDEA CELLULAR V/S SANJEEV SAGAR - Consumer Court Case

Delhi

East Delhi

CC/304/2013

SANJEEV SAGAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDEA CELLULAR - Opp.Party(s)

16 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 304/13

Shri Sanjeev Sagar

18, Hargovind Enclave

Bhartendu Harish Chandra Marg

Delhi – 110 092 ….Complainant

Vs.

JMD Communication

Idea Cellular Company

210, Opp. Metro Station,

Phool Singh Market

Karkardooma, Delhi – 110 092 ….Opponent

Date of Institution: 15.04.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 16.12.2016

Judgment Passed on: 12.01.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

JUDGEMENT

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Sanjeev Sagar against JMD Communication (OP) with allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services.

2. The facts in brief are that the complainant on 26.,02.2013 got his mobile no. 9811016162 ported from Vodafone to Idea Cellular, where a welcome letter with postpaid plan of Rs. 1,299/- rental was given to the complainant. On 15.03.2013, the complainant requested OP to change the plan from 1299 to 324. Email dated 18.03.2013 was sent to OP for activation of Rs. 250/- plan of 3G services, but the complainant was informed that the said services could be activated only from the next billing cycle i.e. 04.04.2013.

The outgoing call and GPRS services of the complainant were barred as Rs. 4,559/- was outstanding, as per the SMS received by the complainant on 04.04.2013. It was stated that the due date was 18.04.2013, but the above said services were deactivated immediately. An email dated 04.04.2013 and letter dated 05.04.2013 for activation of the barred services and issuance a rectified bill were not acceded to by the OP. It was further stated in the complaint that continuous usage of GPRS was reflected from a period of 03.04.2013 to 09.04.2013, despite the fact that outgoing calls and GPRS services were deactivated due to nonpayment of bill. Therefore, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP:

to restore outgoing calls with immediate effect to provide corrected bill.
to provide corrected bill
to pay Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and
to pay Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.

Welcome letter dated 26.02.2013 is annexed as Annexure-A, email exchanged between the complainant and OP are annexed as Annexure B&C (colly), bills issued by Vodafone are annexed as Annexure D (colly), SMS regarding usage intimation is Annexure E.

3. OP was served with the notice of the present complaint, but neither they appeared nor they filed their written version, thus they were proceeded ex-parte.

4. The complainant thereafter filed his evidence by way of affidavit, where he examined himself and deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and relied upon welcome letter (Ex. PW1/A), copy of all correspondences (Ex. PW1/B), copies of emails sent by OP to the complainant (Ex. PW1/C), copy of bills by Vodafone (Ex. PW1/D), intimation regarding data usage during deactivation period (Ex. PW1/E) and SMS regarding GPRS usage (Ex. PW1/F).

5. We have heard the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. The complainant has not placed on record the impugned bill. Ex.PW1/A-welcome letter reveals that the complainant could view bill on OPs website or the complainant could register his email id with OP for bill. Further, Ex.PW1/F, which is stated to be the printed copy of SMS regarding usage intimation bears, sent from “Sagar & Sagar”<

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member Member

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

President