DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.55 of 2017
Date of institution: 24.01.2017 Date of decision : 27.09.2018
Rajesh Kumar son of R.N. Maurya resident of House No.27, Block-D, Shivalik Vihar, Naya Gaon, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Reliance Communications Limited, Registered Office H Block Ist Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, 400710 through its Regional Manager at Chandigarh i.e. respondent No.2.
2. Reliance Communications Limited, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park DLF Building Tower-F, Near Kishangarh Chandigarh through its Regional manager.
3. Reliance Communications Limited, CEO of RCOMS Consumer Business, Office H Block Ist Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, 400710 through Mr. Gurdeep Singh Co. CEO.
4. Farhaan Communication, Naya Gaon, Nada Road, Near SBI ATM SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Retailer.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri S.K. Rattan, counsel for complainant.
Shri Ammish Goel, counsel for OP No.1 to 3.
OP No.4 ex-parte.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant purchased SIM Card bearing Mobile No.8591964628 on 17.12.2016 of Reliance Communication Ltd. from OP No.4 by submitting photocopy of Aadhar Card for purpose of activation of the same. Said activation took place on 20.12.2016. Reliance Commutation Ltd. launched unlimited calling voice plans for offering unlimited calling talk time to any phone or on any telecom network across country including STD calls @ Rs.149/- per month. Outgoing service of above said SIM card was disconnected at 4.00 p.m. on 30.12.2016 and thereafter on the next evening incoming service was also disconnected, but without providing any information to the complainant in that respect. So by pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, prayer made for directing OPs to restore the connection immediately and provide one months’ time as per agreed unlimited plan afresh. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/- more claimed.
2. OP No.4 ex-parte in this case. In reply jointly submitted by OP No.1 to 3, it is pleaded inter alia as if complainant has suppressed material facts with ulterior motive of making false and frivolous allegations. Admittedly Company launched “149 unlimited” calling plan for its customers so as to enable them to have unlimited calling talk time at price of Rs.149/- per month. Admittedly said plan was duly activated for the complainant. However, story regarding disconnection alleged to be concocted. No proof regarding disconnection alleged to be produced by complainant and as such allegation regarding unnecessary harassment or mental tension vehemently denied. It is claimed that if really OPs would have disconnected the connection, then complainant would have tried to get the same restored, but no such request received by OPs. This Forum alleged to be having no territorial jurisdiction because as per Customer Application Form clause, courts at Mumbai alone have jurisdiction. Moreover, it is claimed that special remedy is provided under Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction. Complaint alleged to be filed on flimsy and frivolous grounds and as such by denying other averments of the complaint, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith affidavit Ex.CW-1/2 of Shri Riyaz, Prop. Of No.4 and documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and thereafter closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 to 3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Garry Rana, authorised representative of OPs and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. From the pleadings of the parties and the submitted affidavits, it is made out that complainant availed unlimited talk time plan on payment of Rs.149/- per month. Contentious issue remains as to whether SIM card activated on 20.12.2016 has been deactivated for outgoing calls w.e.f. 30.12.2016, but for incoming calls from 31.12.2016 or not. It is vehemently contended by counsel for OP No.1 to 3 that disconnection has never taken place and even complainant has not produced any proof regarding disconnection and as such complaint being frivolous, merits dismissal. It is not for the complainant to produce record of debarring of income and outgoing calls because circumstance of filing of this complaint on 24.01.2017 itself reflects as if complainant was deprived of right of enjoying outgoing and incoming calls on 30.12.2016 and 31.12.2016 and that is why he approached this Forum. Record of calls bound to remain with Reliance Communication Ltd., who provided the services and as such best evidence available with OPs has been withheld by OPs for the reasons best known to them. Copy of plan of Rs.149/- unlimited calling plan is produced as Ex.C-2 by complainant. No one will approach the Forum for frivolous reasons for the petty matter of deactivation of SIM card on which unlimited calls to be availed on payment of nominal charges of Rs.149/- per month only because amount of Rs.149/- per month is not a big amount.
6. Affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Garry Rana, authorised representative of OP No.1 to 3 shows that the plan was duly activated, but in view of non filing of any complaint by complainant for activation of same with OPs, inference should be drawn that such disconnection had not taken place. Present is not a matter of drawing unreasonable inference because if complainant instead of first approaching OPs, has approached this Forum within 15 days of accrual of cause of action for the grievance in question, then same circumstance enough to show as if complainant felt problem and that is why he approached this Forum. Grievance regarding disconnection of outgoing calls was mentioned by complainant with OP No.4 on 30.12.2016 itself is a fact brine from contents of affidavit Ex.CW-1/2 of Mr. Riyaz, Prop. Of OP No.4 concern. Through this affidavit, it is specifically mentioned by Mr. Riyaz that complainant after purchase of mobile connection got the same activated on 20.12.2016, but due to disconnection, he (complainant) approached him at his shop on 30.12.2016. Further as per contents of Para No.5 of affidavit Ex.CW-1/2, complainant was unable to get any satisfactory reply from Reliance Communication Ltd. regarding disconnection and as such it is obvious that virtually promised services denied to complainant without any rhyme and reason. That amounts to deficiency in service on part of OPs. These services were to be provided by Reliance Communication Ltd. i.e. OP No.1 to 3 and not by its agent namely OP No.4 and as such complaint deserves to be allowed against OP No.1 to 3 only and not against OP No.4. In view of non providing of promised services, complainant becomes entitled to refund of paid amount of Rs.149/- with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 20.12.2016 till payment. In view of sufferance of mental agony and harassment, complainant also entitled for reasonable amount of compensation alongwith litigation expenses, but from OP No.1 to 3 only, whose liability certainly is joint and several.
7. Submission advanced by counsel for OP No.1 to 3 has no force that calls record not bound to be retained by OPs for more than 3 months and that is why the same not produced. In fact activation of plan in question took place on 20.12.2016, but this complaint filed on 24.01.2017 and thereafter Shri Garry Rana, Authorised Representative of OP No.1 to 3 appeared on 20.04.2017 and as such it is obvious that virtually appearance of OPs took place within 3 months of filing of complaint alleging qua problem of deactivation of outgoing/incoming calls. In such circumstances, destruction of record of calls by OP No.1 to 3 itself is a circumstance which goes against them for finding that the said record deliberately destroyed, so that truth may not come out. That fact also proves case of complainant. If New Reliance Communication has stopped project now, as contended by counsel for OP No.1 to 3, then OP No.1 to 3 are not absolved of the responsibility of providing promised services for period of one month, for which charges claimed by them from complainant. Those promised services not provided for period of one month even and as such for that liability of OP No.1 to 3 certainly to remain.
8. No other point argued.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed to the extent that complainant will be entitled for refund of Rs.149/- with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 20.12.2016 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP No.1 to 3 only, whose liability is held as joint and several. Complaint against OP No.4 dismissed. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
September 27, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
