Punjab

Moga

CC/16/138

Surinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Tata Docomo Store - Opp.Party(s)

In person

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 138 of 2016

                                                                                      Instituted on: 19.08.2016

                                                                                      Decided on: 09.11.2016

 

Surinder Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Sh. Jatinder Singh, resident of House No.294/6, Nanakpura Mohalla, Dosanjh Road, Moga.

                                                                          ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       M/s Tata Docomo Store, Dhillon Complex, Plot no.990, Ward no.5, opposite State Bank of Patiala, G.T. Road, Moga, through Zonal Manager.

 

2.       Tata Tele Services Limited, 2^nd and 3^rd Floor, Golden Plaza, Mall Road, Ludhiana.

 

3.       Tata Tele Services Limited, Local Office, C-125, Phase VIII, Industrial Focal Point, Mohali.

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Surinder Singh, complainant in person.

                   Sh. Gursimar Singh Gill, Advocate Cl. for opposite parties.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against M/s Tata Docomo Store, Dhillon Complex, Plot no.990, Ward no.5, opposite State Bank of Patiala, G.T. Road, Moga, through Zonal Manager and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to restore the Tata Docomo no.9256600031, account no.988256221 and to change the above said account from billing to prepaid. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation, damages, mental tension, harassment and deficient services or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be also granted to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is having Tata Docomo billing connection having no.9256600031, account no.988256221. The opposite parties use to send bills of the said connection and the complainant has been paying the bills of the said connection regularly. The complainant requested the opposite parties, through online to change the status of the said connection from billing to prepaid on 10^th June, 2016 vide Sr. No.540296447 dated 10^th June 2016. After that the complainant went to the opposite parry no.1 several times, but they kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant again visited to the office of opposite party no.1 and he was astonished when opposite party no.1 told that his connection has been closed. The action of the opposite parties is ex-parte, dictatorship and against principles of natural justice, law and equity. The connection of the complainant is lying dead for the last more than one month. Due to disconnection of mobile number, the complainant could not contact his relatives, customers and known persons and he has been suffering loss financially, socially and economically. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party nos.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the present complaint is simply an unwarranted litigation made in haste and is sheer waste of time of the Forum. The complainant gave migration request from postpaid to prepaid for del no.9256600031 which got disconnected purely owing to compliance of directions issued by Govt. Authority i.e. DOT (Department of Telecom) to all telecom operators; that as per guidelines stated by Government of India issued vide dated 09.08.2012 through Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Communication (DOT), no individual shall be provided with Bulk Connections. At the time of migrating the Del from Postpaid to Prepaid system automatically figured out the activation of other 5 Dels issued on the name of same customer and said Del got automatically disconnected. Details of such numbers active on the name of same customer are as below:-

S/ N	Customer Name	Address	DEL number	Type	Activation date
1	Surinder Singh	294/6 Mohalla Nanakpur Dusanj Road	9041001509	POSTPAID	3/10/2015
2	Surinder Singh	294 294 Nanakpura Muhalla Dusanj Road	8699333303	POSTPAID	1/8/2013
3	Surinder Singh	294 Nanakpura Mohalla Dusanj Road	9041063780	POSTPAID	7/7/2010
4	Surinder Singh	H NO 294/6 Nanakpura Mohalla Dusanj Road, Moga	8699333301	POSTPAID	6/2/2015
5	Surinder Singh	H NO 294/6 Manakpura Mohalla Dosana Road, Moga	9056634567	POSTPAID	14/08/2015

 

                   The request of the complainant for Migration from Postpaid to Prepaid for Del no.9256600031 was duly registered vide request no.540296447; however owing to activation of multiple Dels on the name of complainant, said Del got disconnected automatically. Further submitted that if customer would have approached opposite party' company immediately, the opposite party company would have taken written confirmation and reason or subscription of 6 dels and on basis of such confirmation would have been able to restore the services of Del. Services to Del got disconnected on 11.06.2016; however, complainant contacted opposite party' company on 25.06.2016 and by that time services to Del got permanently disconnected. It has been further submitted that once any Del got disconnected, it is not possible for any Telecom operator to retrieve the same connection number immediately. In the instance case, complainant was duly informed that once the connection gets retrieved, the company would immediately issue the same connection to the complainant. The present complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties. It was only owing to compliance of DOT guidelines which resulted in disconnection of del number 9256600031 while migrating the del from postpaid to prepaid and same was beyond control of answering opposite parties and hence should not be categorized as deficiency. Further submitted that the complainant is a valuable customer/subscriber of opposite party' company and in order to settle the matter amicably reserved the del no.9256600031 for activating the same on the name of the complainant. The complainant was informed about the status of del and was requested to execute fresh Customer Application form (CAF) alongwith his documents enabling opposite party' company to activate the Del on complainant's name, however instead of appreciating the efforts of opposite party' company, complainant opted to continue with present complaint with malafide intention of gaining extraneous benefits from the company. On merits, it has been submitted that while migration system detected other 5 active connections on the name of same customer and del number 9256600031 got disconnected immediately on 11.06.2016 as per DOT guidelines. That in case complainant would have contacted the respondent company immediately, respondent company would surely had been able to restore the services of Del after taking written confirmation about all 6 connections. This process is automated and del gets disconnected by the system and no manual request is processed. That respondent company received several such request wherein connections of bulk users get disconnected by the system; however same gets restored on giving written confirmation to the company wherein customers approach the respondent company on time. Further submitted that the complainant visited the store after lapse of many days and by that time services to del got disconnected as mentioned in above paras. That whenever complainant visited the store, he was informed of the reason of disconnection and was also assured that whenever the same del got retrieved in free pool, it would immediately be reserved and issued to the complainant on execution of fresh customer application form (CAF) and submission of requisite documents. That del got disconnected by the system and in compliance with DOT guidelines which is beyond the control of respondent company since this whole process is system driven, hence there lies no question of going against natural justice, law and order by the respondent company. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a payer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.              

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 and copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex.C-14 and closed the evidence. 

5.                In rebuttal, opposite parties tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Deputy Manager- Legal, Tata Teleservices Ltd. Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the complainant in person as well as ld. Counsel for the opposite parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                The case of the complainant is that he had a postpaid telephone connection issued by opposite parties in his name. He has been paying all the bills regularly to the opposite parties and nothing is due towards him. On 10.06.2016, he requested the opposite parties to change the said connection from postpaid to prepaid and his request was registered. But opposite parties did not change his connection from postpaid to prepaid and started lingering the matter. At last, the opposite parties told the complainant that said connection has been closed. The opposite parties never informed the complainant before disconnection of the telephone connection and reason for it. Now, the telephone connection of the complainant is lying dead. He requested the opposite parties to reconnect his connection, but they refused to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service and mal trade practice on the part of opposite parties. On the other hand, opposite parties admitted that the complainant had a telephone connection in his name issued by them and he was regularly paying the bills regarding said connection. They further admitted that the complainant made request for the change of his connection from postpaid to prepaid and his request was registered. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties argued that as per instructions of Department of Telecom, Govt. of India no individual shall be provided with bulk connections. At the time of migrating, the Del from Postpaid to Prepaid system automatically figured out the activation of other 5 Dels issued on the name of complainant. So, as per instructions of Department of Telecom the connection of the complainant got automatically disconnected on 11.06.2016. If the complainant would approach the opposite parties immediately, then the opposite parties would have taken written confirmation from him and on the basis of said confirmation they would have been able to restore the service connection, but the complainant contacted the opposite parties only on 25.06.2016 and at that time the service of Del got permanently disconnected. When the complainant visited the opposite parties, he was duly informed regarding the reason of disconnection and informed that connection will be restored on execution of Fresh Customer Application Form alongwith necessary documents. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant never approached for the activation of service on his name. It is only the complainant who had not approached to opposite parties on time, hence his connection was permanently disconnected. The present complaint may be dismissed.

8.                It is admitted case of the parties that telephone connection in dispute was issued by opposite parties in the name of complainant and on 10.06.016, the complainant applied to opposite parties for the change of his connection from postpaid to prepaid. The version of the opposite parties is that as per instructions of Department of Telecom no individual shall be provided with bulk connections. While processing the request of the complainant, it was found that there are already 5 connections issued in the name of complainant and in view of the guidelines of Government of India, his connection was disconnected on 11.06.2016. If the complainant approached to them immediately then on taking written confirmation from the complainant and subscription about all 6 connections in his name, they would be able to restore the service of said connection, but the complainant approached them only on 25.06.2016 and by that time the service of that connection was permanently disconnected. Now, the main point, which is to be considered is that had the opposite parties ever informed the complainant regarding the disconnection of his del or regarding reason of disconnection. Admittedly they never informed the complainant regarding it. They are repeatedly saying that if the complainant approached to them immediately, then they can restore the connection of the complainant, but he did not approach them on time. So, his connection was disconnected. These words does not lying in the mouth of opposite parties when they never informed the complainant regarding disconnection of his del or regarding reason of disconnection. Moreover the stand of the opposite parties is that they disconnected the connection, as per instructions of Department of Telecom, but they have not produce any such instructions or guideline issued by Department of Telecom. This act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and mal trade practice on their part.

9.                In view of the above discussion, the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed and opposite parties are directed to restore the telephone connection of the complainant. Further opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.3000/-(Three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 09.11.2016.

 

                                                 (Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                          Member                                      President