Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/132/2015

M/s Raffik Khan Khendelwal Pro. Khandlevi Car Decore - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Tata Teli Services Ltd. Through Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Raffik Khan

05 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 132/2015

 

Rafiq Khan Khandelvi, Prop.Khandelvi Car Decore, A 171 Opp.Hotel Jayes, Link Road, Jalupura,M.I.Road, Jaipur.

Vs.

M/s.Tata Tele Services Ltd. Through Manager, Guman 1, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 5.8.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr. Liyakat Ali- Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Complainant-appellant present in-person

Mr. Anil Kumar Sain counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 3

None present for respondent no.2 despite service

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 3^rd dated 5.01.2015 by which the complaint was dismissed.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant had applied for a post paid mobile connection of the respondent company through its franchisee opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 took all the documents from the complainant, verified them and then issued him a Sim Card which was to be activated within 24 hours. The complainant had also deposited a sum of Rs.300/- as advance payment. The Sim was not activated within 24 hours and when the complainant approached the opposite party no.2, it could not given satisfactory answer and was directed to company's local office at Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. The complainant alleges that his application was rejected on the ground that he lived in a muslim populated area and himself was a muslim. He was misbehaved by the company officials for which he lodged a police report with the Police Station Vaishali Nagar, The police after investigation submitted a final report as incident unoccured but the concerned Magistrate refused to accept the report and

3

 

directed for further investigation. After further investigation the police again filed a report that complainant had not completed the necessary formalities. Thus, his application was rejected. The reply submitted by the opposite party before the learned DCF was on these lines that since the complainant had not completed the formalities, hence his application was rejected. The learned DCF however, accepted this contention of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint.

 

We have heard the complainant in-person and the learned counsel for respondents no. 1 & 3. Respondent no.2 did not appear despite service.

 

So far as the allegations of misbehaviour on the ground of complainant being muslim and he lived in a muslim populated area is concerned, this is not a matter to be considered by the Consumer Forums, for which the complainant has civil remedies. Similarly the complainant present in-person has argued and criticized the investigation of the Vaishali Nagar Police Station. On this point we do not wish to arrive at any conclusion. We are concerned whether any service deficiency has been committed by the opposite party.

 

4

 

The main contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not completed the formalities. The complainant has submitted a documentation check list which he had obtained from opposite party no.2. On perusal of this check list, it is clear that he had submitted certificate of his date of birth, proof of his identity and proof of his address alongwith other documents. The complainant has enclosed copy of post paid customer agreement form, his valid driving license as a proof of ID and undertaking that he shall continue to pay the bills received from the company, and bills of existing telephone connection of the same company. The contention that the complainant has not completed the formalities cannot be accepted. The complainant had completed all the formalities and had deposited the advance payment. He was issued a Sim Card also but later on his application was rejected for no apparent reasons. This corroborates the allegations of the complainant that his application was rejected for extraneous reasons. We do not concur with the conclusion of the learned DCF that the complainant did not complete the formalities. Hence, the complaint deserves to be allowed. We set aside the impugned judgment of the learned DCF.

 

The appeal is allowed. The opposite parties are directed

5

 

to pay a sum of Rs.51,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as cost of prosecution within one month from the date of this order. The respondents shall also issue him the post paid mobile connection if the complainant is still interested.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Liyakat Ali) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm