DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.71/2012
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sabharwal
232, Vishal Tower, District Centre,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 ….Complainant
Versus
Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.
Through the Director/Manager Mr. Pawan
Mandi Road, Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 07.03.12 Date of Order : 17.01.19
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant wanted to expand the business overseas, he went to Singapore for business meeting on 25.01.12. The complainant took a mobile connection for Singapore from OP on 09.01.12 and the Dy. Sales Manager Mr. Pawan Nagpal came to the complainant and given the details of the plan. The reason for taking mobile number was that local mobile company charges Rs.150/- per minute wherever OP charging Rs.50/- per minute, therefore, the complainant selected OP company for mobile connection. The complainant accepted the terms and conditions and gave a cheque of Rs.2500/- to Mr. Pawan Nagpal and he issued a SIM by the mobile No.+6581812652 of SGT. The complainant accepted the same and distributed the same among concerned officials and he printed the card by using this number. When the complainant reached to Singapore on 25.01.12 afternoon, when he check the number he found that the number is not the same as given by the OP and OP has given the wrong number which is +6591540644. Due to wrong number the complainant suffered a business loss of Rs.35,000/- (approx.) due to unreasonable service. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing the following directions to the OP:-
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for harassment due to wrong number.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.35,000/- to the complainant for business loss.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as cost incurred by the client.
In the written statement OP has inter-alia stated that the complainant signed the Customer Agreement Form which mentions the mobile number as 81812652 and the complainant was issued the same number with important specific instructions to prefix international access code with +65 while making call from India, the number will be +6581812652. The complainant accepted the terms and conditions and gave cheque of Rs.2500/- as demanded by Mr. Pawan Nagpal. It is submitted that it is totally false, baseless, hence denied that business loss has been occurred to the complainant for any mistake done on behalf of the OP. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of OP and stated that the OP had issued the mobile number +6581812652 but in actual it was wrong number which was provided by the OP was +6591540644. The OP had sent a bill in which there is not any call and stated the fact that there is any call from Singapore to Delhi as the company had charged the minimum rent for granting the number whereas there are several calls made and to the client from and Toit is clearly mentioned that the calls are made from the wrong number from India.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Chander Shekhar, Executive, Legal has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant.
No written arguments have been filed on behalf of the OP.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
The complainant has filed the Customer Agreement Form as Ex. CW-1/1 including the important instructions. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 03.02.12 to the OP as Ex. CW-1/A. The complainant filed the bill charge statement as Ex. CW-1/1B. The complainant has filed the refund payment advice as Ex. CW-1/1C wherein the OP has informed the complainant “we are happy confirm that an amount of Rs.1,940/- by cheque number has been refunded to your account.” The complainant has filed the copy of visit card as Ex. CW-1/1D.
Admittedly, the OP issued the SIM card to the complainant. When the complainant reached to the Singapore, he found that that number issued by the OP + +6581812652 is not the same and the number was +6591540644 given by OP. As the SIM was not working in Singapore, the OP vide refund payment advice dated 22.03.12 informed the complainant that an amount of Rs.1,940/- has been refunded to his account. The complainant vide order dated 15.01.19 has stated that the complainant had already received an amount of Rs.1940/- from the OP. The OP has refunded an amount on 22.03.12 i.e. after filing of the complaint on 07.03.12.
Now the main question is for the compensation in regards to the business loss.
The complainant has not filed any documentary proof as to how much business loss he had occurred due to non availability of the mobile number.
In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment undergone by the complainant including cost of litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.5,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 15.07.2019
Devendra
