DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Jeet Bhumbla s/o Late Sh. Bhola Ram, #217, Sec. 21-A, Chandigarh (now residing at Village: Nada, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali).

              ---Complainant

Vs

1.   M/s Tata Teleservices Ltd., through its Managing Director, C-125, Industrial Area, Phase-8, Mohali, Punjab – 160071  Tel: 0172-6651515, Fax: 9041002273.

2.   M/s Driver India Enterprises Solutions Ltd., through its Prop. SCO No. 36-37-38, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               PRESIDING MEMBER

           SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued By:    Complainant in person.

Sh. Saurav Goyal, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.        The instant complaint relates to non-issuance of a Tata Docomo internet connection by the OPs to the Complainant, despite receiving payment for the same.

          The Complainant has stated that he was already using two Tata Docomo Tel. Nos.9041122739 and 9041850535. Wishing to purchase an internet connection, he approached Opposite Party No.2 and purchased E-Stick (Dongle) for Rs.1999.98/- vide bill dated 13.7.2011 (Annexure C-1). Rs.300/- was charged as activation charges and Mobile No. 7696119228 was issued for the same. The Complainant was told by the Executive that a corporate advantage connection was also available to the purchaser of E-Stick (Dongle) with specific series. Thus, the Complainant was encouraged to purchase another Mobile connection No. 9041003838. When the attending executive asked the Complainant to submit documents as residence proof and ID, the Complainant informed him that he had shifted from his old address in Sector 22 to Kharar. The Complainant did not have any proof of the new address. The OPs then asked him to submit copies of proof for the already existing numbers i.e. 9041122739 and 9041850535 for speedy verification. However, when the verification was actually conducted by the OPs, the address of the Complainant was found to be wrong, and hence the internet service was not activated.  The Complainant has thus filed the present complaint alleging malafides, besides unfair trade practice & deficiency in service and has prayed for a compensation of Rs.50,000/-, in addition to the amounts paid.

2.        Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 23.01.2012.

3.        The Opposite Party No.1 in reply while referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as General Manager Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and Another has stated that the matter is outside the purview of this Forum. According to the Opposite Party No.1 the Complainant has not submitted his correct documents of his current address along with ID proof. During verification, the Complainant was found to have moved away from the address mentioned in the application form and hence, the connection was not activated.

          On merits, Opposite Party No.1 has admitted that the Complainant is the user of Connection No. 9041850535. It has been reiterated that the application form for both the new connections had the wrong address mentioned and hence, the activation was denied. Hence the connection has been denied owing to the lapse of the Complainant himself and the answering Opposite Party is not at fault at all in any way. The Complainant has still not given his present current address for activation of the connection. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, opposite party No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

5.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.        We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.2 being ex-parte and have perused the record.

7.        It is evident that the connection desired to be activated by the Complainant has not been activated by the Opposite Parties, due to submission of wrong documents by the Complainant. The Complainant has contended that he had changed his address and had in fact, informed the attending executive about the same, but the said person told him to submit documents of his old address only as the Complainant did not have any proper proof of his new address. Also, he was already a subscriber and user of two mobile connections (9041122739 and 9041850535) issued by the Opposite Parties at the old address, which still continues at the old address.

8.        The Opposite Party No.1 has admitted that the Complainant is a subscriber of one of these connections. It was also stated at bar at the time of arguments that the phone connection is still being used by the Complainant and the address in the bill continues to be the same.

9.        It is, thus, evident that it was only a matter of convenience for the Complainant that the attending executive suggested the submission of proof documents of the old address only. However, when the actual verification was done, the Complainant was not found to be residing at the given address, due to which the new connection was not activated. It was wrong of Executive of Opposite Party No.2 to suggest giving of wrong address and it was equally foolish of the Complainant to agree to do so. Sometimes things which look convenient and easy can create major problems leading to more harm than good.

10.       In the given circumstances and considering the fact that the Opposite Parties are already issuing bills to the Complainant for another mobile phone at the same old address, we deem it appropriate that as the new connection cannot be issued without proper verification of the new address, which has not been given by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties should take back the E-stick (Dongle) for which the Complainant had paid Rs.1999.98 and return this amount to him, along with Rs.300/- received towards the activation charges.

11.       Keeping in view the foregoings, we allow this complaint. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally, directed to take back the E-stick (Dongle) from the Complainant and return him Rs.1999.98, along with Rs.300/- received towards the activation charges. No costs.  

12.       This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 15 days from the date of receipt of the E-stick (Dongle) from the Complainant, failing which, Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay the awarded amount (Rs.1999.98/- + Rs.300/-) to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of E-stick (Dongle), till its realization.

13.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17^th December, 2012.                                                 

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

“Dutt”