Punjab

Sangrur

CC/249/2016

Gora Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Kamal Singla

29 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.  249

                                                Instituted on:    03.02.2016

                                                Decided on:       29.09.2016

 

Gora Lal son of Shri Kundan Lal, resident of House No.348, Ward No.11, Peer Banna Banoi, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, Distt Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Bharti Airtel Ltd. C-25, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Mohali-55, through it Manager.

2.     Bharti Airtel Ltd. Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh through its authorised signatory.

3.     Aman Communication, Geeta Bhawan Road, Near Shiv Niketan Dharamshala, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Sanjeev Kansal, Adv.

For OPS no.1&2       :       Shri Gagandeep Bhagria, Adv.

For OP No.3             :       Exparte.          

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gora Lal,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops by obtaining the mobile connection number 95018-80004, which is being used by his son Narinder Kumar, who is doing the business of fuk nakku and he visits to many states for the purpose of business. The grievance of the complainant is that the mobile connection is not working properly and outgoing and incoming calls becomes dead and the tower of the sim is not shown, as such the complainant is suffering so many problems from the sim supplied by the Ops.  It is further averred that the said sim was also used in other mobiles, but the problem was the same.  It is further averred that despite changing the sim of the mobile in question, the same problem was there. It is further averred that the complainant approached the Ops on 12.11.2015 and 11.1.2017 to get the rectification of the problem of network, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to remove the problem of the sim in question and further to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of business transactions etc and litigation expenses etc.

 

2.             Record shows that the OP number 3 did not appear, as such, was proceeded exparte.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious, that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits,  it is stated that as per their record the complainant had raised service request with respect to the outgoing and incoming calls getting barred on his visit to different states, which was attended by the Ops and after roaming reset, the complainant was advised to remove and reinsert sim card and to check handset settings manually. It is stated that there was no network problem in the Punjab at all. It is stated that the complainant should approach under a special remedy provided in section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, then the remedy under the general law is barred.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10 copies of emails and Ex.C-11 copy of sim card and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2  has produced Ex.OP1&2 affidavit along with Annexure R/A to Annexure R/B and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the user/connection holder of mobile sim having number 95018-80004.   In the present complaint, the complainant has alleged that there is network problem and the sim becomes dead even at the time of outgoing and incoming calls and as such, the complainant approached the OPs so many times to get the problem rectified, but all in vain.  On the other hand, the allegations of the complainant have been denied by the Ops in toto and further has contended that the complainant has not produced any cogent evidence to corroborate this allegation.

 

7.             After carefully perusal of the file, we find that  it is the own case of the complainant that the sim in question of the complainant was replaced with a new one, but the same problem of outgoing and incoming calls becoming dead remained in tact.  In the circumstances, we feel that there must be problem in the mobile setting of the complainant or the complainant even failed to set the setting in the mobile set when he went in roaming.  Further it is nothing mentioned in the complaint by the complainant or in his affidavit about the date, time and place where the mobile in question did not work i.e. during the incoming and outgoing calls. As such, we feel that the complaint himself is not clear about the date, time and place (state like Haryana etc) where the mobile sim left the incoming and outgoing network during his use.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has failed to establish his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 29, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                  Member

 

 

                                                         

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member