BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                Consumer Complaint no. 193 of 2017                                                                

                                               Date of Institution         :          1.08.2017

                                                Date of Decision   :           18.1.2018     

Dalbir Singh aged about 29 years son of Shri Gurnam Singh, resident of H.No. 130/1, Village Musahibwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                   Versus.

1. Mobile Solution, through its owner Kunal Monga, Gandhi Market, Sirsa.

2. Idea Cellular Ltd., Suman Tower Plot no.18, Sector 11, Gandhinagar, Gujrat Pin-382011.

                                                 ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT.

          SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE, MEMBER.        

Present:       Sh. Sandeep Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

Opposite party no.1 exparte.

ORDER

                   In brief the case of the complainant is that complainant is the subscriber of Idea having Sim No.98125-21312 for the last about five years. The connection of the complainant is post paid. Since the day of his being the subscriber of the Idea, he has been making the payments of the bills issued to him by the ops. He has never been declared defaulter in making the payments of the bills issued to him. It is further averred that the complainant has got no other mobile connection except the above said connection and he has distributed the above contact number to his nearer and dearer and the above connection is the only source to contact the complainant. That about two months back, the above post paid mobile connection of the complainant was blocked by the ops without assigning any sufficient reason or without any prior notice whereas the complainant never had made any application regarding the blockage of the said connection nor he had ever committed any irregularity or illegality which may be sufficient to block his mobile connection. That after noticing the blockage of the said connection, the complainant contacted the ops and tried to come to know about the reasons behind the blockage of the said connection and it was made clear by the ops that on account of non payment of the bills the same has been disconnected, whereas nothing is outstanding against the complainant and he was never declared defaulter in making the payment. Further no notice or intimation regarding the pendency of the amount of bills was received by him from the ops. It is further averred that complainant requested the ops to restart the services of the said connection as he has paid each and every bill of the same but op no.1 instead of restarting the services of the said connection, misbehaved with the complainant and refused to restart the said connection. Further it was threatened by op no.1 that a sufficient amount as per the desire of the ops should be deposited by the complainant otherwise his above said connection shall be permanently disconnected/ blocked and the mobile number of the complainant shall be allotted to any other subscriber except the complainant. That still the above connection of the complainant is lying blocked and he is unable to make/receive any call through the said connection. That such act and conduct on the part of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of which the complainant has suffered unnecessary losses. That when all the efforts made by the complainant at his personal level to get restarted his aforesaid mobile connection were proved useless, the complainant sent a registered legal notice to the ops on 23.5.2017 calling upon the ops to restart the services of the above said connection and to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- as loss caused to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of unnecessary harassment but to no effect. It is further averred that ops used to issue bills showing excessive amount of consumption and later on, on the oral request made by complainant, the same were got corrected and amount was reduced which also shows the deficiency of the ops. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that real geneses of the matter are that the cell number of the complainant Dalbir Singh was activated on 20.7.2012. That as per company record a bill of Rs.418.75/- was generated on 5.4.2017 but the complainant made the payment of Rs.132/- only. Thereafter, a bill of Rs.688.11/- was generated on 5.5.2017 but complainant again chose to make a short payment of Rs.140/- only. That a bill dated 5.6.2017 was generated for an amount of Rs.640.86/- and the same was not paid and company passed a goodwill waiver of Rs.483.8/- and complainant deposited Rs.200/- in the account and services were restored and are still active. The complainant is habitual of making short payments. The complainant has not been charged a single penny in excess and hence the complaint is totally misconceived on incorrect facts. It is further submitted that services of the complainant were barred on 5.6.2017 due to non payment and the same were barred automatically by the system of the company. The reason for barring of services was duly informed to the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant was aware that his services were barred due to non payment but still he chose not to make any payment towards usage charges. That the system of company is automated in case of non payment and the number is disconnected automatically after a certain duration. The services were restored on 8.6.2017 after the receipt of payments and passing of goodwill waiver in account of complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.

4.                The complainant and op no.2 then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and have perused the case file carefully.   

6.                The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has categorically deposed that he is subscriber of Idea having Sim No.98125-21312 for the last about five years and the connection is post paid and he has been making the payments of the bills after receiving the consumption bills from the ops and nothing was due against the complainant. The ops without giving any prior notice blocked the said sim and committed irregularity and illegality. Though they restarted services of the said connection after sometime but however the officials misbehaved with the complainant and refused to restart the connection earlier rather gave a waiver of Rs.483/-. As per averments of the complainant, the complainant also served notice Ex.C3 upon the ops and placed on record bills Ex.C5, Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 and receipts Ex.C8 to Ex.C11.

7.                On the other hand, opposite party no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Tarun Khurana, Manager Legal, Idea Cellular Ltd. as Ex.R1 who has also deposed on the lines of averments made in the written statement and placed on record bills Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 and reply to legal notice Ex.R5.

8.                Though, the opposite party no.2 has taken a plea that they have no option except to block the sim as the complainant was a regular defaulter in making payment of the bills from May, 2017. They have further alleged that as per company record, a bill of Rs.418.75/- was generated on 5.4.2017 but the complainant made the payment of Rs.132/- only. Thereafter, a bill of Rs.688.11/- was generated on 5.5.2017 but again he chose to make a short payment of Rs.140/- only. Then a bill dated 5.6.2017 was generated for an amount of Rs.640.86/- but however complainant paid only Rs.200/- towards the arrears of the bills. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.2 has strongly contended that they have already given a waiver of Rs.483/- to the complainant and also restarted the connection. He has also conceded at bar that no due is pending now against the complainant. The perusal of the record as well as evidence of op no.2 reveals that op no.2 though has taken a plea that the complainant was a regular defaulter in making the payments but they have not led any cogent and convincing evidence from which it could be presumed that complainant was a regular defaulter and further more the ops have not explained as to why and under what circumstances they had given waiver of Rs.483/- to the complainant who was alleged to be a regular defaulter in the payments of the bills. The perusal of legal notice Ex.C3 which was sent by the complainant through his counsel Sh. Sandeep Chaudhary dated 23.5.2017 reveals that it was clearly mentioned by the complainant that the postpaid mobile connection of the complainant was blocked by the addressee without assigning any sufficient reason or without any prior notice. The ops have not placed any record that any prior intimation was given to the complainant while blocking his sim and depriving him from the use of the facility for which he hired services of the ops. Under these circumstances, it is apparently clear that it was legal obligation of the ops to provide the best and uninterrupted services to the complainant/ subscriber who had hired services of the ops for a valid consideration. Though, the op no.2 has taken the plea that their system blocked the sim automatically due to non payment of the bills by the subscriber but in the present case the ops have failed to establish that there was any due against the complainant rather giving waiver of Rs.483/- itself speaks about the truth otherwise that there was some irregularity in the account at their end. So blockage of the sim without any notice to the complainant clearly amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the ops for which complainant deserves for compensation.

9.                In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- (Rs.four thousands) to the complainant as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment.  Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in the open Forum.        Member      President

Dated: 18.1.2018.                                       District Consumer Disputes   

                                                                    Redressal Forum, Sirsa.