Delhi

East Delhi

CC/375/2014

SUBHASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDEA - Opp.Party(s)

21 Oct 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. 375/14

 

Shri Subhash Chand

S/o Late Shri Salag Ram

R/o H. No. 5/355-356, Mohalla Maharam

Chaki Wali Gali, Shahdara, Delhi-110 032                                       ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Tata Teleservices ltd.

Regd. Off. - Jeewan Bharti Building

Tower-I, 10^th Floor, 124, Connaught Circus

New Delhi – 110 001

 

2. Idea Show Room Singals

393/13, East Anand Nagar

Krishna Nagar, Delhi – 110 051                                                    ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 07.05.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 21.10.2016

Judgment Passed on: 04.11.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Subhash Chand has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Tata Teleservices Ltd. (OP-1) and Idea Show Room (OP-2).

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant, who was using Tata  No. 9210844444 wanted to transfer his sim in the Idea for which in the month of November’2013, he contacted at the customer care of respondent.  The officer of the respondent converted the sim of the complainant in the Idea.  He used the sim only for 4 months.  He was not satisfied with the services of Idea and he approached OP-1 for conversion of sim in Tata.  He was asked to deposit documents, which he filed with OP-1.  He also deposited all dues of bill of OP-2.  His sim was activated.  He was shocked when without any reason, after 45 days, OP-1 disconnected the sim.  He personally visited at the office of OP and requested to reactivate the same, but he did not get any satisfactory reply.  Thus, he has stated that act of OP was highly illegal, uncalled, unwarranted and against the principle of natural justice.  Thus, he has prayed that OP be directed to activate mobile no. 9210844444,             Rs. 70,000/- compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.

3.        In the WS, filed on behalf of Tata Teleservices Ltd. (OP-1), they have stated that his number was ported back to OP on 18.02.2014 as per the guidelines related to mobile number portability.  However, his number was disconnected on 05.04.2014 on request of the donor company i.e. Idea Cellular.  He was advised to approach Idea Cellular for redressal of his grievance, as they were helpless in providing any remedy to the complainant.  They were acting strictly in terms of the TRAI’s Regulations relating to MNP and therefore cannot be held liable for the alleged deficiency in services, if any, owing to adherence of law.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.        OP-2 was not represented.

5.        The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-1, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

6.        In support of its case, the complainant has not examined himself on affidavit.  Though, no evidence has been placed on record on behalf of the complainant, but Tata Teleservices Ltd. (OP-1) have examined   Shri Amar Saxena, General Manager (Legal), who has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.

7.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for OP-1 and have perused the material placed on record as none appeared on behalf of complainant to argue.  The fact that the complainant have not examined himself on affidavit and have not placed anything on record to substantiate his allegations, his complaint cannot be said to be proved.  On the contrary, Tata Teleservices Ltd. (OP-1) have examined Shri Amar Saxena, General Manager (Legal) whose testimony cannot be belied.  Thus, in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the complainant, it cannot be said that the complainant has succeeded in proving any deficiency on the part of OP-1.  Therefore, his complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.         

            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