Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/2583

IDEA CELLULAR LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHAN GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

09 May 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 2583 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 13.09.2013 passed in C.C.No.166/2013 by District Commission, Morena)

 

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED.                                                                          …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

MOHAN GUPTA & BSNL.                                                                              …         RESPONDENTS.

 

                                           

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                 HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA :      MEMBER

  

                                      O R D E R

 

09.05.2023

 

            Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

            None for the respondents.

                                   

As per A. K. Tiwari :                       

            This appeal by the opposite party no.2/appellant Idea Cellular Limited is directed against the order dated 13.09.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Morena  (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.166/2013 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 directing the opposite party no.2/appellant to activate the disputed sim. Compensation of Rs.1,000/- and costs of Rs.5,00/- is also awarded.

2.                In brief, facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that his father Laxminaryan Gupta had purchased a SIM no.94251 126718 from the opposite party no.1 and he was paying the bills regularly. It is alleged

-2-

that he was using the SIM regularly. Later he port the said SIM to opposite party no.1 Idea Cellular Limited after completing all the formalities and got transferred the same in his name, thereafter, he started the said SIM from 25.03.2013. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party no.2/appellant blocked the said SIM. He therefore approached the District Commission seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party no.1-BSNL resisted the complaint stating that the disputed SIM is in the name of complainant’s father Laxminarayan Gupta and not in his name. It is further submitted that the as per Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, the District Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

4.                The opposite party no.2-Idea Cellular Limited in its reply before the District Commission stated that it is true that the consumer had continued services of opposite party no.2 under the portability of disputed SIM. Since the SIM was issued by the opposite party no.1, therefore on the instructions of the opposite party no.1, the opposite party no.2/appellant discontinued/blocked the said SIM. The whole liability is of opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.2 also raised objection that the disputes under the Indian Telegraph Act can be entertained only by TRAI.

 

-3-

5.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record as also the impugned order, it is an admitted position the disputed SIM was purchased by the complainant’s father Laxminarayan Gupta and not by the complainant. This fact is admitted by the complainant in paragraph 1 of his complaint. The allegation of the complainant is that he transferred the said SIM in his name and after portability of said SIM from BSNL to Idea, he had started the said SIM on 25.03.2013.  However, from the record we find that at page no.25, there is a receipt for a sum of Rs.195/- dated 30.03.2013, in the said receipt the name of the consumer is mentioned as Laxminarayan Gupta and not Mohan Gupta. Similarly in the bill dated 20.04.2013 of BSNL the name of the consumer is mentioned as Laxminarayan Gupta and not Mohan Gupta. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that he transferred the said SIM in his name and after portability to Idea, he started the SIM from 25.03.2013 cannot be relied upon.

6.                It is also pertinent to mention that the complainant failed to produce any document showing that he got the SIM transferred in his name and after portability to Idea he started the SIM from 25.03.2013.  There is no document showing that the said SIM was in the name of the complainant Mohan Gupta.

 

-4-

7.                In such circumstances, when the SIM in question is not in the name of the complainant, he cannot be termed as a ‘consumer’ of the opposite parties, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since he is not a consumer, the complaint filed by him before the District Commission is not maintainable. 

8.                The District Commission without relying on any documentary evidence on record presumed that the SIM got transferred in the name of the complainant and has erred in allowing the complaint.

9.                In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

10.              In the result, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

 

       (A. K. Tiwari)      (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)

   Presiding Member          Member                      Member