Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/112/2015

Dr. Rajesh Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prince Communication - Opp.Party(s)

In person

04 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No. 112 of 15.09.2015

Date of Decision            :   04.03.2016

 

Dr.Rajesh Bhatia S/o Sh.Tarsem Lal R/o H.No. 21, Gali No.2, Ranjit Nagar, Chandigarh Road Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.       Prince Communication, Dealer of Idea Cellular Ltd. Company, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahr, through its owner/Manager/Partner/Proprietor.

2.       Idea Cellular Limited, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase VII, Mohali – 160055, Punjab through its Owner/Manager/Partner.

Opposite parties

 

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

BEFORE: 

SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.SUSHMA HANDOO, MEMBER

                            

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant   :         Complainant in person.

For OP-1              :         Ex parte.

For OP-2.             :         Sh.Pushpinder Kataria, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.       Complainant, a doctor by profession, claims himself to be holder and user of mobile connection bearing No.88721-23400 for last many years.  Regular monthly bills had been deposited by complainant with OPs from time to time, but despite that OPs without intimation and instructions obtained from complainant sold the said number to somebody else illegally and unauthorizedly.  On contacting OPs through phone by complainant, they failed to provide proper services and as such complainant claims to have suffered mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment.  Prayer made for direction to OPs to issue the said mobile number and even pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation, but Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       OP-1 is ex parte in this case, but OP-2 filed written statement by pleading inter alia that complaint not disclosing cause of action; jurisdiction of this Forum barred in view of Section 7 – B of Indian Telegraph Act and the services were availed for professional purpose due to which complainant is not a consumer.  Complainant himself submitted request for disconnection on 27.04.2015 and same was processed by OP through help line number 2636.  In view of request of complainant, the number was temporarily disconnected on 29.04.2015 for the reason that the same is not in use.  However, permanent disconnection of the above referred mobile number took place on 14.05.2015.  As complainant himself requested for disconnection and as such no wrong committed by OPs.  After disconnection, the same number has been allotted to other subscriber of name of Sh.Vicky Ghai.  Complainant was the subscriber of the mobile No.88721-23400 upto 14.05.2015.  Efforts were made by OP company to retain complainant as its customer/subscriber by offering lower rental plan, but the same was refused by complainant.  Complainant contacted OPs only on 03.09.2015 i.e. after 3 and half months for inquiring about the disconnection, but OPs have already tried its best to retain complainant as its customer, even after submission of request for disconnection by complainant. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.   

3.       In order to prove the case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents i.e. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and thereafter closed the evidence.

4.       Counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A of Sh.Manoj Madan, authorized signatory of OP alongwith documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/5 and thereafter closed the evidence.

5.       Written arguments submitted by counsel for OP-2 only, but Oral arguments of complainant and counsel for OP-2 were heard and records gone through minutely.

6.       From pleading of the parties and produced documentary evidence there remains no doubt that mobile connection No.88721-23400 was availed by complainant until disconnection on 14.05.2015.  Even if complainant has not given the dates of disconnection or of approaching OPs for complaining against disconnection, despite that Ops in their written statement specifically pleaded that the said mobile was disconnected temporarily on 29.04.2015, but permanently on 14.05.2015 in view of request dated 27.04.2015 of complainant.  Technicalities cannot be allowed to stand in the way of administration of justice to a consumer because the consumer Protection Act is a welfare legislation enacted for safeguarding the interests of the consumer.  So in case facts disclosing cause of action decipherable from the material produced on record, then the same is no ground for dismissing the complaint merely because of non-mention of the dates reflecting accrual of cause of action in the complaint.  As OP-2 himself has pleaded that in view of the request dated 27.04.2015, the temporary disconnection took place on 29.04.2015, but the permanent disconnection on 14.05.2015 and as such these facts enough to hold that cause of action accrued to complainant for filing this complaint w.e.f. 29.04.2015, particularly when it is claimed by complainant that disconnection has   taken place without intimation to him and without issue of any instructions by him.  Being so the complaint is within limitation. 

7.       It is contended by counsel for OP-2 through written arguments that courts at SAS Nagar (Mohali) alone has jurisdiction because of the agreement for getting the dispute settled from those courts.  Though it is contended that the said clause is contained in the proposal form, but the said proposal form has not been produced on record.  The produced documents by OP do not at all show about existence of any agreement between parties for getting the dispute settled from Courts situate at Mohali alone.  So this argument of counsel for OP-2 is without basis.  Rather the mobile connection in question was used by complainant in area of SBS Nagar and as such he suffered loss due to disconnection within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  So this Forum certainly has jurisdiction.

8.       It is also contended by counsel for OP-2 that as per claim of complainant the mobile services were availed by him as a Doctor by profession and as such complainant is not a consumer.  That submission of counsel for OP-2 has no force because if the mobile services availed by complainant because of his profession as doctor, then virtually these services were availed by complainant for earning his livelihood, by use of the mobile.  As and when services availed by a consumer as professional for earning livelihood, then he will be entitled to the protection of Consumer Protection Act, being a consumer in view of Section 2(d) of the Act.  So submissions of counsel for OP-2 has no force that complainant cannot be treated as a consumer. 

9.       It is also contended by counsel for OP-2 that in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex court of the Country in case General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan & Anr bearing Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 (copy of which produced as Ex.OP2/1), this Forum has no jurisdiction.  After going through Ex.OP2/1 it is made out that dispute in the cited case was raised regarding non-payment of bill for the telephone connection provided to respondent No.1 of that case and that is why it was held that in view of rule 413 of Telegraph rules read with section 7 – B of Indian Telegraph Act, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction.  However, that is not the position in the case before us because here dispute not raised qua disconnection due to non-payment of telephone bill, rather the dispute is raised that disconnection took place without consent of complainant, despite the fact that he had been paying the bills regularly.  Bills Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 issued by OPs in that respect has been produced for showing that complainant had been paying the monthly bills regularly from December 2014 to April 2015.  It is the case of OP-2 that disconnection took place in view of the request dated 27.04.2015 submitted by complainant himself, but that plea stoutly opposed by claiming that no such request was ever submitted by complainant.

10.     Counsel for OP-2 has taken us through computer generated statement Ex.OP2/2 for arguing that complainant remained unwanted customer and i.e. why his disconnection took place.  How complainant became unwanted customer qua that explanation offered is to the effect that complainant did not agree to accept offer of paying low rent as contained in copy of the relevant computer generated statement Ex.OP2/4.  This Ex.OP2/4 is of date 25.07.2014, but Ex.OP2/2 pertains to period from 25.07.2014 to 27.04.2015.  Bills Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 shows payment of monthly bill qua the mobile in question by complainant on 30.12.2014, 30.01.2015, 20.03.2015 and 21.04.2015 respectively.  If complainant had paid the bill of mobile phone in question upto 21.04.2015 regularly, then question of making request by him for disconnection on 27.04.2015 does not arise, particularly when the said payment was to enable complainant to avail the mobile services until 1^st week of May 2015 at least.  No written request submitted by complainant has been produced to show that he applied for disconnection.  Rather, in view of the fact that Ex.OP2/4 is of date 25.07.2014, it is obvious that OPs worked out plan by generating this document for claiming as if complainant not willing to avail the benefit of connection under low rent plan 125.  An educated person engaged in the profession of a doctor, if offered to avail services of mobile phone under low rent plan 125, on 25.07.2014, definitely will not continue to make payment on the old rates until 21.04.2015 by paying Rs.200/- through Ex.C-4 and also the same amount of Rs.200/- on 20.03.2015 through bill Ex.C-3 or Rs.150/- through bill Ex.C-2 of date of 30.01.2015.  However, that was done by complainant by paying above referred amounts and as such it is obvious that virtually a story has been concocted by OPs qua request of complainant to get the connection disconnected.  In view of this complainant certainly has suffered mental agony a lot because he lost contact with the patients and persons known to him through mobile number in question due to fault of OPs.  If really complainant was to get the mobile number in question disconnected, then he would have submitted request in writing for that purpose, the record of which bound to be maintained by OPs.  It is not disclosed by OPs as to what was the wording of the request of disconnection submitted by complainant or as to whether said request was in writing or through email or through SMS and as such particulars qua alleged request are vague.  Being so case of OPs qua submission of alleged request by complainant not believable. So deficiency in service on part of OPs is there, particularly when they have allotted the mobile number in question to somebody else i.e. Mr.Vicky Ghai without consent of complainant.  Restoration of the said mobile number in favour of complainant cannot be ordered, particularly when above said Mr.Vicky Ghai has not been impleaded as a party.           

11.     As a sequel of above discussion, this complaint is allowed in terms that compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment of complainant and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- will be payable by OPs to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 

12.     Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.

13.     File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Dated:  04.03.2016 

                                      (Sushma Handoo)        (G.K. Dhir)

Member                                  President