Date of filing : 21-11-2013
Date of order : 29-04-2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.269/2013
Dated this, the 29th day of April 2015
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Ibrahim.P.S. S/o.Shamsuddeen, : Complainant
R/at Pulikoor House, Shiribagilu,
Kasaragod Taluk and District.
(Ad.Nagesha poojari, Kasaragod)
1 Reliance Communications Ltd, : Opposite parties
H Block, 1st floor,
Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,
Navi Mumbai 400 710, Maharashtra, India
(Adv.O.Prasanna Narayanan, Kannur)
2 Reliance, City Communication,
I.C. Bhandary Road, Kasaragod
(Exparte)
O R D E R
SMT. SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER
The brief case of the complainant’s case is that he was working as a real estate businessman and was having a BSNL sim bearing No.9946994827. As per the Portability scheme he wanted to change the same to reliance net work by retaining the same number since It was advertised that reliance sim call charge is cheaper. The opposite party No.2 herein specifically told the complainant that in the portability scheme the number will not be blocked for a single day and customer need not suffer a single day due to the non-functioning of the sim. The second opposite party also informed to furnish all necessary documents along with its activation charge and thereby assured that within 15 days his BSNL sim will be dead and at that movement reliance sim will started to function. Accordingly the complainant had complied all the directions. On 6-11-2013 BSNL sim was stopped functioning and on that day complainant inserted reliance sim but surprisingly the sim was not activated till 21-11-2013. The complainant contacted several time to customer care centre to redress his grievance but it was activated only after 6 days and all those six days the complainant was put in great hardships and harassment due to the non-functioning of the sim card. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. The opposite parties served notice. Opposite party No.1 appeared and filed version. Opposite party No.2 remained absent and set exparte.
3. In the version opposite party No.1 contended that the complainant herein submitted the consumer application form for changing the service provider under Mobile portability scheme duly filled only on 21st November 2013 and the respondent No.1 connected the service on the same day on receipt of properly filled form and supporting documents as to identity at the cluster office. And he further contended that there is laches on his part to submit the statutory requirement and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed.
4. The complainant in this case filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and documents was produced as on his side . Complainant was examined as PW1 and he was cross examined by his counsel and Ext. B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties. The evidence evaluated and perused the documents marked by the Forum. The sole question to be answered in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties? The opposite party No.1 herein contended that there is no laches at all from their part to activate the sim. The entire case of the opposite party was based on the document i.e. Ext.B1. The Forum clearly perused the Ext.B1 which is the application form submitted by the complainant before the opposite party for availing reliance connection. PW1 in this case clearly admitted the photographs and his signature on Ext.B1 without any doubt. But in the cross examination with regard to very crucial aspect of the date of submission of application, PW1 categorically stated before the Forum that he does not remember whether he had put the date under his signature. In such a context the Forum perused Ext.B1 and found that all the dates seen on Ext.B1 is similar without any discrepancy. Moreover, PW1 further deposed before the Forum that all the columns Ext.B1 except the signature was filled by the staff of the opposite party. It is highly pertinent to note that while cross-examination or in the version the opposite party No.1 does not have a case that the entries with regard to all the dates on application were made by the complainant. Apart from all these points the opposite parties not entered into box to substantiate his contention also. Moreover, it is totally unbelievable that the reliance sim was activated on the same day e on which the application was submitted by the complainant. It is admissible in evidence that now a days everybody are fully depending upon mobile phone for communication. The complainant herein who is a real estate businessman is running his business and thereby eking his livelihood out of his profession most of the time depending upon mobile phone. Such a person might have suffered a lot of inconvenience and hardships due to the non-functioning of the mobile number. By considering all these aspects we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for a compensation due to the mental agony and hardships caused to him because of the deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties.
In the result, the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost of proceedings. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
B1. Copy of Prepaid Customer Application Form of Ibrahim.P.S.
PW1. Ibrahim.P.S.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
