Complaint filed on: 04.05.2012

                                                      Disposed on: 16.01.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.918/2012

DATED THIS THE 16^th JANUARY OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant: -                     

Melvyn Vaz,

Aged 60 years

Sone of the Henry Vaz,

Presently residing at

#102, 1^st Floor, Casa Maria,

Lewis Road, Cooke town,

Bengaluru-560005

and also at

Buqubai Tower,

Khalidia Area

Abu Dhabi, U.A.E

Represented herein by his GPA Holder

Mr.Sydney Joseph D’sa

Aged 59 years

Son of the late Viotor D’Sa

Presently residing at

No.24/1, Suanders Road,

Fraser Town,

Bengaluru-560005

By Adv. Sri.L.P.E.Rego

V/s

Opposite party:-       

Mrs.Bharthi Airtel Ltd.,

A body incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at

Aravali Crescent,

No.1, Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kung-Phase II,

New Delhi-110070

Represented by here in by its Manager

and

Circle office at

#55, Divyasree Towers,

Bannerghatta Main Road,

Bengaluru-560029.

By Adv. Sri.B.J.Mahesh

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant represented by GPA holder has been alleging the deficiency in service against the Opposite party/Bharthi Airtel Ltd. in connection with his three “new life time phone connections”.

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he got the installation of 3 phone numbers of the Opposite party on a “Life Time Validity Basis” on 26.07.2006 (9980759166), on 26.07.2006 (9980759177), on 02.08.2007 (9880830868) at the cost of Rs.999/- each with pre-paid facility. He shuttles between Abu Dhabi and Bengaluru. Advance payment made by him remain un-utilized for considerable period of time, now and then. As of July 2010 an amount of Rs.1,800/- remained to his credit against the said installations. The Complainant returned to Bengaluru in July 2011 and learnt that the phone number 9880830868 rendered non est and it was sold to third person. In July 2011 he described that the un-utilized monies were liquidated entirely without any justifications. In this connection series of e-mails and correspondences were held. The Opposite party evaded addressing the pivotal issue involved.  Apart from stock replies, hypothetical remarks and concern and loaded with empty promises by Opposite party made him to run pillar to post and hence he got issued the legal notice dated 28.07.2011. The act of the Opposite party amounts to deficiency in service towards him about the life line connections. Hence this complaint is filed.

          3. The Opposite party has questioned the locus standi of the complainant to file this complaint relying in reported decisions 2009 AIR SCW 5631, instead of approaching the competent authority u/s 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act. The Opposite party contends that irrespective of the balance available in the account of the pre-paid 3 mobile connections if not used in 3 months continuously such connections would get disconnected and if the subscriber intends same number would be alloted to him or to any person who opt for such number. The Complainant has not used 9880830868 for more than 6 to 8 months and hence it was disconnected i.e. on 23.04.2011 and alloted to subscriber Mallesh and it cannot be restored to the Complainant. Other 2 numbers are active and continued in the name of the Complainant and there is no negligence or deficiency towards the said 2 numbers.  He is not responsible for any alleged loss to the Complainant. He has not acted to cause loss to him. The Complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. The GPA holder of the Complainant and the official of Opposite party filed their affidavit evidences. The Complainant relied on Ex-A1 to Ex-A5 documents. No documents were produced by Opposite party. Written arguments were filed by both side. Arguments were heard and perused the records.

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the deficiency in service against the Opposite party/Bharthi Airtel Ltd. in connection with his three “new life time phone connections” ?
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the Complainant who shuttles between Abu Dhabi and Bengaluru owing to the demand of his employment, being represented by his GPA holder Ex-A1, became subscriber to 3 mobile connections of the Opposite party bearing no. 9980759166, 9980759177 and 9880830868 with effect from 26.07.2006, 26.07.2006 and 02.08.2007 respectively. All of them were 3 paid connections taken under the scheme as per Ex-A2 “The New Life Time” subject to the terms & conditions mentioned therein for MRP of Rs.999/-, wherein the condition no.2 reads as here under:

* Connection will be permanently deactivated if either of the following events i.e. no incoming/outgoing/ recharge happens for any continuous period of 6 months.

          8. The Complainant did the e-mail transactions in between 29.07.2010 till 23.08.2010 as per Ex-A3 and also in between 28.08.2010 to 13.07.2011 as per Ex-A4 relating to all the said 3 connections. In Ex-A3 on 23.08.2010 he has admitted as here under:

I will not rest until you give me an explanation as to what happened between Dec 6^th 2009 until July 2010 when the sim cards were not in use.

9. The Opposite party has responded on 13.07.2011 as shown in Ex-A4 informing that 9880830868 has been disconnected due to zero usage. When it was questioned through Ex-A5 legal notice dated 28.07.2011 and through this complaint the Opposite party has contended that the said number ended with 30868 is not used by him for more than 6 to 8 months and hence it was disconnected and on the option of the subscriber one Mallesh, the said number was given to him on 23.04.2011 and as such the said number cannot be restored to the Complainant.

10. The Opposite party has mentioned that the other two numbers are active in the name of the Complainant and thereby there is no negligence or deficiency of service on its part. The perusal of the terms & conditions of Ex-A2 clearly shows that the Opposite party is empowered to disconnect the subscribed numbers under the said scheme if it is not used for any purpose for more than 6 months. The Complainant has admitted that they were not in use atleast from December 2009 to July 2010 and thereby disqualifies himself to question the Opposite party. Now he cannot define the life time scheme according to his convenience saying that as long as the substantial amount is there in the concerned accounts of the connections, it cannot be closed.  Admittedly he discovered the unutilized monies when he came back to India in July 2011 and it shows that he was not using the phone from July 2006 till then for years together. He cannot claim himself as the consumer after the date of disqualification. He cannot contend that his consent or information to him is required for the Opposite party to disconnect the said sim cards as against the terms of Ex-A2. The Complainant made allegations that the Opposite party made advertisement in Ex-A2 only about the possibility of disconnection but contradictory to its term disconnected them and the said arguments also cannot be accepted, because of the clear reading of the terms & conditions. Hence the act of the Opposite party cannot be considered as deficiency in its service.

11. The Complainant has not made any allegations about the other 2 numbers for which the Opposite party has mentioned that the said numbers are still standing in his name.  The Opposite party has the right to get the same numbers to continue subject to compliance in terms of the renewal and this fact also cannot be considered as deficiency in service.

12. The Opposite party had contended that this forum has no jurisdiction to try this matter in view of section 7-B of IT Act and the said arguments also have no force in view of the observations made in the reported decisions in WP(C)8285/2010 and CM No.21319/2010 dated 06.02.2012 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and (2004) 1 SCC 305. Hence the Complainant has failed to establish the Consumer Dispute No.1 in his favour and accordingly it is answered in the negative.

          13. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of the findings of Consumer Dispute No.1 the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The Complaint of the Complainant is here by dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 16th day of January 2017).

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party