Date of filing    :  05-10-2013

                                                                     Date of order   :  21-08-2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.230/2013

                      Dated this, the  21^st   day of   August   2014

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                          : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL                               : MEMBER

Anand Krishnan, S/o.Krishnan,                           : Complainant

Proprietor, V-Power Systems and Services,

Nambiar Keechal, Po.Udma,

Kasaragod District

(Adv.K/Dineshkumar, Hosdurg)

1 Manager, IDEA CELLULAR LTD,                      : Opposite parties

  4^th Floor, Mercy Estate, Ranipuram,

  Kochin, Kerala, 682015.

2 Manager, IDEA POINT, “Rangees”Udma,

   Po.Palakunnu, Kasaragod.Dt.

                                                            O R D E R

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER

            The complainant’s case is that he is conducting invertors  supply business and its services.  He was using the disputed idea sim number and that was the only contacting number for the customers to contact him.  The specific case of the complainant that he had been using the said mobile number exclusively for his business.  On 9-8-2013 the opposite parties herein abruptedly disconnected the sim without any valid reason, all incoming and outgoing calls were blocked  and entire datas including the contact numbers were disappeared from sim and complainant’s entire business become isolated due to the above reason.  Eventhough on several times complainant approached opposite party No.2 to restore or continue functioning of sim card, opposite parties failed to do anything or atleast to give a valid reason  for disconnecting the sim it amounts to deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties.

2.         On issuing notice to opposite parties, Adv.M.Ramesh filed vakalath, but subsequently no version filed by opposite parties and the complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts  A1 to A7 marked.

3.         The complainant in his chief examination submitted that he is conducting invertors business and the disputed idea sim number is the only contacting number for the customers to contact him and Ext.A1 is his visiting card and the same number is exhibited in Ext.A1 and in his business advertisement.  The Forum is really surprised to see the contention in the reply notice sent by opposite party No.2 to the complainant.  As per Ext.A6 reply notice, the reason stated by opposite party No.2 for disconnections of the idea sim was due to the non-usage and opposite party further contended that company reserve the right to block the service on 89^th day of the non-usage and     deactivated the sim on 90^th day of the non-usage.  On close perusal of Ext.A6 that if any connections on long validity tariff is not used, that is no outgoing call/no chargeable incoming call, Idea cellular Ltd reserves the right to block the service on 89^th day of non-usage.  Though notice was served on them in time, opposite parties failed to adduce any evidence before the Forum that as per their network the condition for maintaining  a prepaid number to be active, there should be regular usage. Ext.A7 is the particulars of call list of the land line number of the complainant  would shows that there  were 43 calls to the disconnected sim.  If the call details of the disconnected sim would   have been produced by the complainant, that would definitely help the Forum to arrive at a clear conclusion with regards to the aspect that this disputed sim was the only contact number for the  smooth functioning of his business.  On relying upon Ext.A7, the opposite party cannot justify their act of disconnecting the sim.  Hence deficiency in service is proved by the complainant.  But it should be noted that eventhough the complainant  is claiming 3 lakhs as an amount of compensation for his business loss sustained to him, he has not produced any documents to prove that he had sustained such a huge loss due to the act of the opposite parties.

            The complaint is therefore  allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation  to the complainant together with a cost of Rs.2000/-.  Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

MEMBER                                                             MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1.Visting Card of Anand Krishnan

A2. 20-06-2013 Copy of lawyer notice.

A3.Postal receipt.

A4 to A5 Postal acknowledgment cards

A6.4-7-2013 Reply notice.

A7.Incoming and out going call chart of land line number issued by BSNL

MEMBER                                                             MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT

Pj/