Haryana

StateCommission

A/96/2015

IDEA CELLULAR CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAKESH BAHADUR AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

NARENDER KAAJLA

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                             

                                                         First Appeal No.96 of 2015

Date of Institution:-23.11.2015

                                                           Date of Decision: 12.08.2016

 

Idea Cellular co. Ltd. A-68, Sector 64, Noida 201301 (U.P.) through its authorized person/Managing Director Sanjeev Aga.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.         Rakesh Bahadur, District Attorney, H.No.1116/3. Rana Colony Khailil Street, Kalka 133302, Distt. Panchkula (Haryana).

2.         Tata Teleservices Ltd. C125, Industrial Area, Phase-8, Mohali-160071 (Punjab).

3.         A to Z Telecommunication, Shop No.8-9, Sector 12-A, Panchkula (Haryana).

4.         The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg (Old Minto Road), New Delhi 110002.

                                                …..Respondents

 

CORAM:                    Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                                          

Present:                     Shri  Narender Kaajla, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                                    Shri R.S.Sharma, Advocate counsel for respondent No.1.

                                    None for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

                                    Mrs. Veena Bhutani, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.4.

 

                                                               O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. Idea Cellular Co. Ltd.– OP-1 is in appeal against the Order dated 19.12.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula, (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Rakesh Bahadur - Complainant has been allowed with the following directions: -

“(i)       the OP No.1 is directed to activate the mobile No.9466115525 of the complainant without any delay.

(ii)        the OP No.2 is directed not to raise any demand from the complainant as he cleared all the dues to be ported out of services of the OP No.2.

(iii)       To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-  as mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

4. To pay Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation”.

 

2. In brief, the complainant was consumer of OP No.2 and had a post paid mobile No.09466115525. Due to mis-conduct of OP No.2, after depositing the amount of Rs.2000/-, the complainant got the connection port with the OP No.1. The complainant opted a pre-paid connection in the month of April, 2014, because the OP No.2 was charging extra money in every monthly bill without providing the bill details. After getting one month of port, the OP No.1 demanded that the complainant had to deposit an amount of Rs.1223/- to the OP No.2. In response to the above demand, the complainant informed the OP No.1 that nothing was outstanding against him as the complainant had already deposited full amount to the OP No.2 before getting option of port. The complainant also informed the OP No.1 through customer care number and e mail that he had nothing to deposit any amount, but neither the OP No.1 nor the OP No.2 provided the details of the bill to the complainant. On 16.06.2014, the OP No.1 without giving time or notice had without any cause of reason, deactivated the mobile connection No.09466115525. Due to illegal and arbitrary manner of the OPs, wrong message was conveyed to 1158 persons who were telephonically connected with the complainant on that number. There being no other option left to the complainant he deposited the amount of Rs.1220/- to OP No.2 vide receipt No.65095028 dated 17.06.2014. The complainant gave notice through e mail to OP No.1,2 and 4, but the mobile number has not been activated. This act and conduct of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service on their part.   
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to OPs 1 & 4 through registered post, but none has appeared on their behalf and the notices were deemed to have been served. Therefore, OPs 1 & 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.09.2014. Notice was issued to OP No.3 but he did not file any written statement even after availing many opportunities,  hence, defence of OP No.3 was struck off vide order dated 14.11.2014.
4. Justifying its action, the OP-2 pleaded that the complainant had ported out the DEL without clearing the outstanding amount of Rs.1278/- for the services used by the complainant till 07.05.2014. The outstanding amount of Rs.1223/- for the bill period 09.04.2014 to 08.05.2014 was not cleared by the complainant before porting out the DEL from the network of OP No.2 and the DEL had been disconnected by the OP No.1. As per the company’s record, an amount of Rs.1278/- was still unpaid against the DEL No.9466115525. There was no deficiency in service on their part. The plea of the OP-2 was however, rejected and the learned District Forum allowed the complaint on 19.12.2014 by granting the aforesaid relief. 
5. Against the impugned order dated 19.12.2014, the OP-1 / appellant have filed appeal before us reiterating the same pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.  Despite repeated opportunities, the appellants and the other respondents No.2,3 and 4 could not produce the bill, in question, on the basis whereof the disputed amount of Rs.1223/- was demanded by OP-2 from the claimant. Not only that when it was specifically asserted by him that all payments had already been made and nothing was due towards him, it was the duty of the appellant and other respondents i.e. service provider to confront the complainant with the requisite bill. Even with the present memorandum of appeal, no such bill is forthcoming. In these circumstances, we have no option, but to infer that no such bill was ever sent to the complainant. Moreover, before actually deactivating the mobile connection, it was the duty of the appellant and other service provider to afford adequate opportunity to the complainant by issuing a prior notice. No such duty was discharged by the appellant. This clearly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, for which the learned District Forum had rightly held them liable to compensate the complainant. Consequently we do find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed by upholding the detailed and well considered order passed by the learned District Forum.
6. The statutory amount of Rs.6000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

August 12^th, 2016                       Urvashi Agnihotri                                   R.K.Bishnoi,                                                     Member                                                Judicial Member                                                Addl. Bench                                          Addl.Bench

S.K.