Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/103

Ajay Bawa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ramesh Kumar Adv.

12 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 103 of 19.02.2015

Date of Decision    :   12.05.2016

              

Ajay Bawa son of Sh.Garib Dass Bawa resident of H.No.4640, Durga Puri, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.Idea Cellular Limited, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali through its Director/MD.

2.Dhiman Communications, Hambran Road, Ludhiana through its Manager/Prop.

…Opposite parties

 

    (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                       :        Sh.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.

For Op1 and OP2                     :        Sh.Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate

 

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant, a user of mobile No.98558-31339 aspired to migrate/port the above said mobile number with OPs company from postpaid to prepaid. For that purpose, he contacted officials of OPs company, who directed the complainant to deposit the whole bill amount. Assurance was given to the complainant that services of the mobile will remain suspended only for some hours i.e.1:00 AM to 6:00 AM. So complainant deposited the whole amount of bill on 29.9.2014 and even paid Rs.10/- extra for portability. Request for migration from postpaid to prepaid was submitted on 24.9.2014 and confirmation message of migration was received. Thereafter, OPs illegally suspended the services of mobile of complainant from 24.9.2014 to 29.9.2014 without assigning any reason. During this period, various requests were submitted by the complainant to Ops for restoration of services of mobile, but they remained unheeded too. Complainant claims to have suffered mental tension and agony due to suspension of service and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OP1, it is pleaded interalia as if he is unnecessarily dragged in the litigation. Besides, it is claimed that complaint has been filed by misusing the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. OP1 alleged to be not guilty of any deficiency in service as alleged and as such, prayer made for dismissal of complaint with special cost of Rs.10,000/-. Complainant has suppressed the material facts because he has not disclosed about filing of an application by himself for change of plan from postpaid to prepaid. Information was received by OP1 on 24.9.2014 and thereafter, the said number was converted on the same day at 4:30 P.M. After that dealer/distributor had to activate the number after formality of completing documents. Documents submitted by the complainant were found objectionable by verifying agency. Said objections were removed by the complainant on 29.9.2014 and thereafter, the said number was activated on same day. As per guidelines of TRAI, OP1 has to confirm/verify about all the submitted documents at the time of issuance of any connection or change of plan for the purpose of security. Allegations of illegal suspension of services from 24.9.2014 to 29.9.2014 denied. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Op2 was proceeded ex-parte in this case, but on filing of application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, the ex-parte proceedings order was not set-aside. However, liberty was given to Op2 to proceed in the complaint from the stage they were going on at stage of filing application.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and then closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Manoj Madan, authorized signatory of OP1 as well as affidavit Ex.RB of Sh.Pawan, Proprietor of OP2 and even tendered document Ex.R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by the parties. Oral arguments of counsel for the parties heard. Records gone through minutely. 

7.                Admittedly, the complainant applied for switching over of plan from postpaid to prepaid on 24.9.2014. Bill Ex.C1 of postpaid number of the mobile of amount of Rs.737.25P was paid by the complainant through receipt Ex.C2. In fact amount of Rs.749/- was deposited by the complainant through that receipt Ex.C2 and as such, certainly submissions advanced by the counsel for the complainant has force that the complainant had paid the entire amount of the postpaid bill amount. After such payment, a communication message Ex.C3 was received by the complainant through SMS.

8.                Grievance of the complainant is that though he was assured about suspension of mobile services from 1:00 AM to 6:00 AM alone, but in fact those remained suspended from 24.9.2014 to 29.9.2014 and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. However, contents of affidavits Ex.RA and Ex.RB submitted by OPs along with pleadings of Op1 establishes that in view of the application for change of plan from postpaid to prepaid, complainant was required to submit the documents, verification of which, to be got conducted through verifying agency and as such, in view of objections raised by the verifying agency qua legality of submitted documents, the mobile services remained suspended. These assertions/submissions of counsel for the OP1 has force because copy of intimation Ex.R2 shows as if 2^nd level rejection was communicated on 26.9.2014. As documents submitted by the complainant were not verified by the verifying agency and as such, the activation of the sim from the postpaid to prepaid was not legally possible at all. That objection raised by verifying agency was communicated to the complainant on 27.9.2014, but on the next day, it was Sunday, due to which, office of OPs was closed and as such, after visit of the complainant to the office of OPs on 29.9.2014, the verifying agency removed the objection and then the mobile sim was activated for prepaid services. These assertions contained in the affidavits are borne out from contents of Ex.R2 which duly corroborates the case of OPs that second level rejection took on 26.9.2014. As it was after receipt of the communication of rejection that OPs concerned was to communicate the complainant and as such, case of the OPs is believable that intimation qua rejection of the submitted documents was communicated to the complainant on 27.9.2014. That verification was done by Ops in accordance with the procedure laid for Switching over from prepaid to postpaid or post paid to prepaid services. On internet search on Google.com , it is found that following steps required for switching over from prepaid to postpaid or postpaid to prepaid connection by the same service provider. That procedure is reproduced as under:-

“Approach customer care centre with Documents: Submit your address proof, identity proof and photo in the customer care centre after which they will give you a migration form to fill. Now you need to choose a postpaid plan of your choice. The security deposit you are liable to pay depends on the plan you choose. Usually a new sim is handed to you.

Verification: The service provider will conduct a verification. They sent a person at home to confirm your address and identity.

Activation of new SIM: Activation of the new SIM card may take up to 48-72 hours, after which, your migration will be complete. Your old SIM will stop working, then you need to put in your new SIM, call the given number to activate and after some time (30 mins) your new connection will be on.”

9.                So, it is obvious that as per practice or procedure, on submission of address proof, identity proof and photo by customer, the customer care centre to get the migration form filled and thereafter, verification of all the produced documents to be got conducted by the service provider by sending a person at the home of the customer for confirmation of the address and identity. In case, legible copy of address proof not produced, then fault lay with the customer concerned and not with the    service provider. Considering above said points, it is made out that for activation of a new SIM Card, 48-72 hours may be consumed after completion of migration formalities and as such, in case such time from 24.9.2014 to 26.9.2014 taken by Ops, then no illegality committed by OPs. Rather, the time for verification of 3 days was permissible and the same was taken by service providing agency. After raising of such objections by verifying agency and communication of that objections to the complainant, it was his(complainant) responsibility to remove the objections. The objections were removed on 29.9.2014 by the complainant by visiting office of OPs and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Rather, OPs duly followed the procedure qua change of services from postpaid to prepaid. Being so, question of unnecessary harassment of the complainant does not arise.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, present complaint being without merits is hereby dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                      (Babita)                            (G.K.Dhir)

                              Member                            President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:12.05.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.