BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No. 11/2017

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2018

(Date of Institution: 26.4.2017)

J. Nesarajan, son of Jacob Rajan, Christian,

Aged about 36 years and residing at No.10,

3^rd cross street (North), Suriyagandhi Nagar, Muthialpet,

Puducherry.                                                          ….     Complainant

vs

1. M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Oceanic Towers, 8^th floor,

101, Santhome High Road,

Chennai 600028

2. M/s. Univercell Mobile

Rep. by its Manager,

Shop No.02, (Opp. Hotel Anandha Inn),

Bharathi Street, Puducherry - 605001                           ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B., 

MEMBER

Tmt. D. KAVITHA, B.A., LL.B.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:  Thiru R. Mugundhan, Advocate           

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: Tmt. V. Kamala Kumar, Advocate for O.P.1

                                                          Exparte – O.P.2.                    

O R  D  E  R

(by Thiru A. Asokan, President)

              This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, to direct the Opposite Parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and torture caused to him due to the negligence and deficiency in service; to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-  towards costs of the proceedings.

2.       The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The complainant is having own medical shop at Puducherry.   He had approached the O.P.2 for availing the service provided by O.P.1, paid Rs.300/- along with required identity proofs and passport size photo and obtained an Airtel postpaid connection bearing mobile number 9994778991, vide receipt No.28637 dated 17.2.2017.   The above said mobile number was activated after the address verification by O.P.1 on the same day.   On 28.2.2017the services was stopped without giving any prior intimation.   The complainant approached the O.P.2 to know the reason of deactivation, but no response was given.  So, he had contacted the customer care of O.P.1, there was also no response.   Thereafter, he sent an email on 8.3.2017 to the O.P.1 via grievance mechanisam provided by the O.P.1.   On 9.3.2017 he got reply that his complaint would be looked into within 48 hours.  Later on 13.3.2017 he got another email from the opposite party-1 that "they have escalated the case to concerned team, as per the reply from the concerned team, the Airtel number 9994778991 is already disconnected on 28.2.2017 and the same number will not be activated again".   The reply of the O.P.1 did not contain any reasons for the disconnection.     The act of disconnecting the mobile number without assigning any reasons and without any proper notice amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P.1 and P.O.2.   So he sent a legal notice on 18.3.2017 to both the O.P.s   They received the same, but did not send any reply.   Hence the complainant filed this complaint.

3.       The reply version filed by the O.P.1 briefly discloses the following:

           The complainant had approached the O.P.2 for transfer of the connection with the number 9994778991 on the ground that the said number was in his wife's name.   It was denied by O.P.2, since the number was not in the complainant's wife's.    After few days, he had approached the O.P.2 with a 'no objection letter from one Prabhu, who is the original owner of the number, along with his proof of identity and on submission of the said documents, the number was transferred in the name of the complainant and the same was activated on 17.2.2017.   Within few days said Prabhu approached the first O.P. seeking reasons for disconnection of his number, for which the O.P.1 has confirmed that the number was transferred to the complainant based on his no objection, which he denied and informed that he has not issued any such no objection and he does not know the complainant at all.   So O.P.-1 disconnected the complainant's name and returned back the same to the original owner.   Said Prabhu stated to lodge a police complaint against the complainant for misuse of his name and creating of forged documents of him.   This was also duly informed to the complainant.    Thereafter, the complainant sent a complaint mail to the customer care and then sent an advocate notice.   While this O.P. taking steps to issue a reply notice, he filed this complaint.   The complainant has not submitted the actual facts to the forum.   He obtained the connection from the O.P.s by submitting forged documents of the original customer.   Since the complainant is a wrong doer and cannot seek relief under a beneficial legislation.   Hence, he prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.  The second opposite parte remained absent and set exparte. 

4.                On the side of the complainant, the complainant was examined as CW1 and Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 were marked through him.  The complainant did not let in any oral evidence, however, Exs.C1 to C9 were marked on consent.    On the side of the O.P.1, no oral evidence was let in; two documents were produced, but not marked. 

5.                 Points for determination are :

1. Whether the Complainant is the Consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.                Point No.1:

                    The complainant has obtained an Airtel post paid connection bearing mobile number 9994778991 from the second opposite party on 17.2.2017, for Rs.300/- vide Ex.C1 the photocopy of collection receipt for mobile usage.  The second opposite party is the service provider.    Hence the Complainant is the Consumer for the opposite parties as per the Consumer Protection Act.

7.                Point No.2:

We have perused the complaint, the evidence of CW1 and Exs.C1 to C8.   We have also perused the reply version and two documents filed by the first opposite.  The second opposite party remained absent and hence, the second opposite party is set ex parte.    

8.                The complainant alleged that he had obtained an Airtel postpaid connection bearing mobile number 9994778991, vide Ex.C1 on 17.2.2017 and the same was activated after the address verification was done by O.P.1 on the same day.     But the services to the above said mobile number of the complainant was abruptly stopped without giving any prior intimation.   In this regard, he approached the opposite parties, but they did not give proper response.   Then, the complainant sent a complaint mail to the O.P.1 on 8.3.2017, for which he received a reply through email from O.P.1 stating that the complainant's complaint would be looked into within 48 hours.   Later on 13.3.2017 he got another e-mail from O.P.1 stating that he has escalated this case to concerned team, as per the reply from the concerned team, the Airtel number 9994778991 is already disconnected on 28.2.2017 and the same number will not be activated again.    The complainant sent the email transaction, vide Ex.C2.    Since the reply of O.P.1 did not contain any reason, he sent a legal notice to both O.P.s vide Ex.C3.  The postal receipts addressed to the Opposite parties are Ex.C4 and Ex.C5.   The copy of computer generated delivery track report of the legal notice to O.P.1. and the acknowledgement duly signed by the second O.P. are marked as Ex.C6 and Ex.C7.   Ex.C8 is the original sim card.

9.                On the other hand, the second opposite party alleged that the complainant approached the O.P.2 with a 'no objection letter from one Prabhu, who is the original owner of the sim card number, along with his proof of identity and obtained the number 9994778991 in his name and the same was activated on 17.2.2017.   Within few days said Prabhu approached the first O.P. seeking reasons for disconnection of his number, for which the O.P.1 has confirmed that the number was transferred to the complainant based on his no objection, which he denied and informed that he has not issued any such no objection and he does not know the complainant at all.   Thus, first opposite party disconnected the complainant's name and returned back the same to the original owner.  Since there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the opposite party prayed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

10.              This forum has carefully perused the materials available on record.  The complainant alleged that he obtained an Airtel post paid connection on 17.2.2017 and the same was activated on completion of address verification on the same day; suddenly on 28.2.2017, the services were abruptly stopped without giving any prior intimation.   Though reply version was filed by the first opposite party, they did not let in any evidence.   The second opposite party did not appear before this Forum and not refute the allegation of the complainant.   The first opposite party has produced two documents to support their version, but the same was not marked.   Document No.1 is the copy of receipt issued by the Kiliyanoor Police station for the complaint lodged by one Prabhu and the second document is the copy of the complaint given by said Prabhu to the first opposite party.   According to the CW1, he did not give any no objection obtained from one Prabhu to the second opposite party and the complaint given by said Prabhu was filed only on 18.7.2017 i.e. four months after the issuance of the advocate notice and nearly three months after the filing of the complaint and forty eight days after the first opposite party entered appearance in this complaint and the complaint alleged documents are created for the putting forth a defence in this case.    On perusal of the said documents, this forum observed that document No.1 is merely a receipt for the complaint lodged by one Prabhu and the second document is the complaint given by said Prabhu to the first O.P., but it was not acknowledged by the first opposite party.   The first opposite party did not produce the no objection certificate of said Prabhu and did not examine any witness to disprove the complaint.   Hence, in the absence of sufficient evidence to disprove the pleading in the complaint by the first opposite party, adverse inference be drawn in favour of the complainant.    

11.              From the facts narrated above and from Ex.C1 to Ex.C8, this Forum observed that the complainant has obtained an Airtel connection bearing mobile number 9994778991 on 17.2.2017 and the same was deactivated on 28.2.2017, i.e. within 10 days, which caused mental agony to the complainant.  The complainant approached the opposite parties in so many ways to know the reason for deactivation of his mobile number, but the opposite parties not cared about the request made by the complainant and not defend the case with cogent evidence.  Hence, to meet the ends of justice, this Forum comes to a conclusion that the opposite parties not only have committed negligent act, deficiency in service, but also indulged in unfair trade practice which subjected the complainant to undergo mental agony and hence, it is held that the complainant is entitled for compensation for the loss and injury and for the mental agony caused and the opposite parties are liable for the same.

12.              POINT No.3:

                    In the result, the complaint is hereby allowed and the OPs are jointly and severally directed:

i) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the loss and injury and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of Opposite Parties. 

          ii) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this proceedings. 

Dated this the 9^th August, 2018.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS: NIL

16.10.2017           S. Murali, Vocational Instructor      

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:

RW1           17.01.2017           Thirumurugan

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS: NIL

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:  NIL

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

MEMBER