DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 350 of 13.12.2007<br /> Decided on : 16-05-2008 <br /> <br /> Gurmeet Kaur aged about 44 years W/o S. Triptinder Pal Singh Sekho R/o Village Phagan Majra, Tehsil and District Patiala now resident of and posted as Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Talwandi Sabo. <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.M/s. Spice Communication C-105, Second Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Mohali.<br /> 2.M/s. Spice Communications Limited, Hotel Embassy Complex, M.C. No. 2029-A, The Mall, Bathinda. ... ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Kuljit Pal Sharma, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay her Rs. 5.00 Lacs as compensation for embarrassment, harassment, bothration and mental agony besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant as emanates from the complaint itself leading to its filing may be epitomised as under :<br /> She is a member of Punjab Civil Service (Judicial) which is a transferable job. She is permanent resident of village Phagan Majra, Tehsil and District Patiala. When she was posted as Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazlika she had subscribed to the mobile telephone services which are provided by the opposite parties. Post paid mobile connection bearing No. 98145-35118 was released to her several years ago. At that time she had supplied her residential address of Fazlika. She continued making payment of the consumption and service charges bills. After sometime she was transferred to Malout in June, 2004. In the year 2005 she had furnished her permanent home address of her village to the opposite parties through their distributor/agent M/s. Raghav Communications, Malout alongwith affidavit and copy of Identity Card issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. All the bills for rental, consumption/usage charges and services tax are regularly delivered by the opposite parties at her permanent address supplied by her. Payment is regularly made. Nothing is outstanding towards her. She was transferred to Talwandi Sabo in May, 2007. She continued using the connection without any obstacle. On 6.11.07 SMS was received by her which was sent by the opposite parties asking her to contact No. 12345 (Number of Customer Care Section) of the nearest Spice showroom for the purposes of address confirmation. Address was confirmed by her on the designated number. An application dated 7.11.07 was also sent intimating her correct permanent address to the opposite parties through Mr. Mukesh Kumar her Stenographer. One day before Dewali she had gone to her parental house i.e. permanent address for celebrating Dewali with her family. She was stunned as she could not make any call from her cell. Outgoing calls on phone were barred by the opposite parties without any rhyme and reason or prior notice. Customer Care Section at Number 12345 was contacted. Call was attended by one Executive with the name Monika. Reply was given by her (Monika) that there was negative reporting about the complainant's identity from verification made by their representative. She further told that her brother Gurdeep Singh was contacted at the designated address and he had informed that she (complainant) is in service and lives at the place of posting and she is usually comes to spend her holidays and on other occasions. For that reason, the facility was barred. She (complainant) tried to explain that her brother confirmed her identity, place of posting and address. Verification of her present station of posting could be had from her. It is further averred by her that Monika had remarked that it is necessary for subscriber to reside at the permanent address. Complainant disclosed to Monika that she was available at the permanent address and if company so desired, they could make necessary verification immediately or on the next day. Further request was made by her that since Dewali was near calling facility be restored as she was to contact her colleagues and superiors for conveying Dewali Greetings and that she was already facing considerable inconvenience, harassment and embarrassment due to undue barring of calling facility. Her request was not acceded to. To the contrary, Monika remarked that nothing could be done and outgoing call facility could not be restored until and unless Identity proof was provided. Complainant had the intention to contact Senior Executive of the opposite parties, but he did not come on the line as it was told that he was busy. Entire process of the call consumed her almost 30 minutes. Calling facility of the mobile phone was unilaterally restored by the opposite parties on 14.11.07 without any further Identity proof. Complainant alleges that abrupt barring of calling facility for about a week was arbitrary, illegal, malafide and unjustified and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. <br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking preliminary objections that it was due to the fault at the end of the complainant by not submitting the documents which are essential for reverification of the address; services were barred for a short span of time; only courts at Ropar and Chandigarh are competent to entertain and try the complaint and complaint is liable to be dismissed as on 6.11.07 complainant was informed to submit the documents for reverification. On merits, they admit that complainant is using post paid connection since 4.3.04. Inter-alia their plea is that she was not paying her bills regularly due to which her outgoing services were barred many a times. Her credit limit was less due to non-confirmation of her address. On 15.12.05 request was made by her for change of address from Fazilka to Village Faggan Majra, Tehsil and District Patiala. Address was changed on 17.12.05. Executive of the Company was sent for confirmation of the address on 21.12.05 and her address was found untraceable. At that time outgoing services were interrupted. On the reference of Mr. Gaurav an Officer of the Company at Bathinda, connection was reactivated. Bills were delivered by them at the last given address. She did did not give any proof about her change in address from Patiala to Talwandi Sabo. On 4.4.07 reconfirmation of the address was done and her brother had told that she is living at Sangrur. Due to non-confirmation of the address, services were again interrupted and even a message was sent to her on 4.4.07. On 5.4.07 her number was again restored on the request of Mr. Vikas Kataria, Spice Officer from Bathinda. On 6.11.07 when reconfirmation was done for unconfirmed address as per directive of the Department of Telecommunication and TRAI, her brother had confirmed that she had shifted to Sangrur after marriage. Message was sent to her on 6.11.07 to contact the nearest showroom of Spice. She failed to provide requisite documents. They were left with no other option but to interrupt the services as per instructions of TRAI. Whenever her brother was contacted on her billing address, he always confirmed that she had shifted to Sangrur after marriage. She was not available at the given address. It was mandatory for them to verify the address of all the customers. She did not give proper proof of her residential address. Her telephone connection was restored as application was submitted by someone on her behalf. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, she has produced in evidence her affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Identity Card (Ex. C-2), copy of letter (Ex. C-3), photocopy of Application Form (Ex. C-4) and photocopy of PAN Card (Ex. C-5).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties, affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Bhanot, Manager Finance (Ex. R-1), Proforma of application Form (Ex. R-2), photocopy of verification of subscribers Identity (Ex. R-3), photocopy of application form (Ex. R-4), photocopy of PAN Card (Ex. R-5), photocopy of customer and address verification feedback (Ex. R-6) and photocopy of verification result/remarks form (Ex. R-7) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 7. Some facts become undisputed. They are that complainant had subscribed to mobile telephone service. Post paid mobile connection No. 98145-35118 was allotted to her. At that time, she had furnished her address of Fazilka as she was posted there as Judicial Magistrate First Class. Her post is transferable. In the year 2005 she had furnished her permanent address of Village Faggan Majra, Tehsil & District Patiala which was changed by the opposite parties. One day before Dewali, outgoing calls from her cell phone were barred by the opposite parties . Calling facility on this mobile number was restored on 14. 11.07.<br /> 8. Arguments pressed into service by the learned counsel for the complainant are that complainant had furnished her permanent address of her Village Faggan Majra. All the bills for rental charges etc. were received at that address and were duly paid. Despite this, outgoing calls from her cell were barred. Matter was brought to the notice of the officials of the opposite parties and they paid no heed. Calling facility was barred without any cause in a most arbitrary manner.<br /> 9. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments by submitting that due to non-completion of the address, services were interrupted. On 6.11.07 when reconfirmation was done for unconfirmed address, her brother had informed that she has shifted to Sangrur. Message was sent to her for address confirmation and for contacting nearest show room of Spice. Whenever she was contacted on billing address, her brother Gurdeep Singh always confirmed that she has shifted to Sangrur. It was mandatory on the part of the opposite parties to verify the addresses of all the customers. Complainant never gave proof of her address. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Dinesh Bhanot, Manager Finance of M/s. Spice Communications, Ex. R-2 Proforma of Application Form in which there is column regarding proof of Identity and residence, Ex. R-3 copy of letter of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India according to which Department of Telecommunication had issued instruction to all the mobile and unified access service providers to carry out 100% verification of Identity proof of existing subscribers by 31st March, 2007, Ex. R-6 copy of the Customer and Address Verification Feedback and Ex. R-7 copy of Verification results and remarks.<br /> 10. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 11. Complainant reiterates her version in the complaint in her affidavit Ex. C-1. Ex. C-2 is the copy of the Identity Card issued to her by the Registrar of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh in which her designation has been recorded as Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate. An application copy of which Ex. C-3 was submitted by her to the Branch Manager of Spice Telecommunications, Bathinda intimating her address as Gurmeet Kaur D/o S. Gurnam Singh, S/o S. Basakha Singh, R/o Village Phaggan Majra, Tehsil and District Patiala. Even in the copy of the Permanent Account Number (PAN) issued by the Income Tax Authorities, she has been described as Gurmeet Kaur D/o Gurnam Singh. She being judicial officer, her post is transferable from time to time. Learned counsel for the opposite parties could not show us any rule according to which it is necessary for a subscriber to reside at permanent address for all the times. Even otherwise it cannot be expected that subscriber to the mobile connection should remain stationary. Opposite parties accepted the changed address of the complainant as Village Faggan Majra, Tehsil and District Patiala.. They were sending the bills for rental etc., at that address. Opposite parties were accepting the amount of the bills sent at that address. Her Identity was clear even from the Identity Card issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana Copy of which was supplied to the opposite parties as per version of the complainant. Opposite parties have themselves placed on record copy of her PAN which is Ex. R-5. Ex. R-6 reveals that Gurdeep Singh confirmed that subscriber i.e. complainant is personally known to him and is residing at her permanent address and using mobile connection No. 98145-35118. Even if it is taken that she had gone to Sangrur, question regarding her Identity does not remain in dispute. Residential address and Identity proof are taken to know the genuineness of the subscriber and to avoid complications. Nothing on this aspect of the matter was involved in this case. Another circumstance which gives jot to the version of the opposite parties is that outgoing call facility was withdrawn one day before the Dewali and thereafter unilaterally it was restored by the opposite parties on 14.11.07 without any further Identity proof. Unilateral restoration proves that barring was based on frivolous grounds. Plea of the opposite parties in para No. 10 of the reply of the complaint is that connection was restored as an application was submitted by someone on her behalf is unfounded and baseless. It is not known who had submitted such application. Alleged application has been withheld from this Forum. Even if it is taken for arguments sake although we do not subscribe to it that application was moved even then, it is not known who was that person and how he was connected with the complainant. No weight can be attached to this stance of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, no other conclusion can be arrived at than the one that barring of the outgoing facility of the telephone connection of the complainant was arbitrary and without just and reasonable cause. Hence, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established.<br /> 12. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Complainant was paying the bills of her post paid mobile connection regularly. Undue barring of the calling facility must have caused her undue harassment particularly when she was not at fault. There must be embarrassment to her as she could not convey her Dewali Greetings to her colleagues and superiors. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused her mental agony and botheration. For all this, she deserves some compensation In our view apt and appropriate compensation is Rs. 4,000/-. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Delhi in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. Sukhbir Singh Bahl 2005(1) CPC 82. Ordered accordingly.<br /> 13. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 14. In the premises written above, complaint against the opposite parties is accepted with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :<br /> i) Pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. <br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of its receipt failing which the amount of compensation under section 14(1)(d) would carry interest @9% P.A. till realisation.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 16-05-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'iki' <br />