Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/707/2016

Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Communications Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Arjun Kundra

08 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/707/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	29/08/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	04/05/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Avtar Singh S/o Sh. Ram Lal, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Village Kansal, P.O. Naya Gaon, Mohali – 160 101.

 

……… Complainant.

 

Versus

 

[1]  Reliance Communications Ltd., H-Block, 1^st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai-400710, Maharashtra (India), through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

 

[2]  Idea Cellular Ltd., SCO 495-496, Second Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh – 160 036, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

 ……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. S.S. PANESAR             PRESIDENT

SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Arjun Kundra, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate.
For OP NO.2	:	Ms. Rameet Bakshi, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

          Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint and emanating from the record are that, the Complainant was having Mobile No.9569772572 of Reliance Communications Limited (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Opposite Party No.1’) since 18.08.2014 and had paid an amount of Rs.300/- towards Security deposit. It has been averred that due to network relating problems, the Complainant got the said mobile connection ported to Idea Cellular Limited (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Opposite Party No.2’) on 29.05.2016. The Complainant honoured the last bill for the period 01.05.2016 to 05.06.2016 of Rs.368/- raised by the Opposite Party No.1 on 04.07.2016. It has been alleged that despite porting the aforesaid connection, the Opposite Party No.1 did not make refund of the security amount, even after constant follow-ups and requests of the Complainant. After being ported, the Opposite Party No.2 had also raised a bill of Rs.350, against the aforesaid Mobile No. 9569772572, which the Complainant duly honoured vide Receipt Annexure C-4. Nonetheless, surprisingly, the Opposite Party No.2 disconnected the aforesaid mobile connection of the Complainant on 16.07.2016, unilaterally. Accordingly, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2, who instead of resolving the issue, put the ball in the court of Opposite Party No.1, citing reasons of some pending dues. The Opposite Party No.1 when contacted, feigned its ignorance, regarding the whole episode, and directed the Complainant to approach the Opposite Party No.2, for getting the needful done. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.      Opposite Party No.1 resisted the complaint by filing its written reply, inter alia, admitting that the Complainant was the subscriber of 9569772572 and had submitted a security of Rs.300/- while subscribing the connection. It has been pleaded that the Complainant on his own accord got his connection ported to another operator. Further, no request was ever made by the Complainant for the refund of the security deposit. The security refund of the Complainant is under process and shall be refunded to him in due course. It has been further urged that the answering Opposite Party had no role in the disconnection of the services, as alleged. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that the Complainant got his Reliance connection ported to Idea Cellular Ltd. and the number was activated on 31.05.2016. It has been asserted that the number 9569772572 was disconnected on account disconnection request received due to non-payment of an amount of Rs.368.39/- (NPOS Amount). Upon receiving the aforesaid request, the Complainant was duly informed of the same by way of SMS, but he failed to clear the outstanding dues. It has been urged that the mobile connection cannot be restored by the answering Op as the number has been returned to the Opposite Party No.1 as per the guidelines. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      The Complainant also filed separate rejoinders to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statements by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have been controverted.

 

7.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

8.      The key controversy swirls around the short question, “whether the action of the Opposite Parties in disconnecting the disputed Mobile No.9569772572 of the Complainant, unilaterally, is justified or not”?

 

9.      Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in the negative.

 

10.      There is no dispute about the fact that the Complainant became a customer/consumer of the Opposite Party No.2 by porting his Mobile No.9569772572, on 31.05.2016. It is admitted case of the Opposite Party No.2/Recipient Operator, that it had received a request for disconnection of the number of the Complainant from the Opposite Party No.1/Donor Operator, on 01.07.2016, due to non-payment of an amount of Rs.368.39/-(NPOS). We have examined the entire record of the case in the light of submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties. The matter can be clinched on the basis of Annexure C-2, which is the last bill sent by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant, for the period 01.05.2016 to 05.06.2016, for an amount of Rs.368/-. It has borne on record that the Complainant had duly deposited the said last bill raised by the Opposite Party No.1, on 04.07.2016 vide Receipt Annexure C-3 by making a deposit of Rs.370/-. This makes a clear pointer towards the fact that the Complainant had duly honoured the last bill raised and there was nothing due towards him in respect of the Mobile No.9569772572 which he got ported to Opposite Party No.2. In these set of circumstances, it is legitimately proved that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, by disconnecting the Mobile No.9569772572 of the Complainant, particularly, when there was nothing due towards him.

 

11.      Significantly, the Opposite Party No.2 held its nerve contending that the Complainant was duly informed about the disconnection request sent by his previous operator i.e. Opposite Party No.1, through various SMS message, but he took no action to clear the outstanding bill, therefore, Opposite Party No.2 has not indulged in any kind of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. However, we are not impressed with the same, as in the entire episode, the Complainant has been made a shuttle cock between the Reliance Communications Ltd. (Opposite Party No.1) and Idea Cellular Ltd. (Opposite Party No.2). At any rate, there is an ostensible misunderstanding/communication between the aforesaid Service Providers, as a result of which, firstly, the mobile connection of the Complainant was disconnected, abruptly, without having fault on his part, and, secondly, he has been harassed enormously by running after the Opposite Parties for getting the aforesaid connection restored. Therefore, due to the irresponsible attitude of the Opposite Parties in dealing with the entire matter, the Complainant has to suffer immensely.

  

12.      The next question which falls for consideration is as to whether the Complainant is entitled to the security deposit or not? The answer to the question posed has to be in the affirmative.

 

13.      Admittedly, the Complainant being the subscriber of Mobile No. 9569772572 had deposited a security of Rs.300/- with Opposite Party No.1 while subscribing the said connection. It has been admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant got his connection ported to another operator i.e. Opposite Party No.2. Annexure C-1, which is an acknowledgement, placed on record by the Complainant, is the testimony to the effect that the Complainant had deposited Rs.300/- towards security amount. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Opposite Party No.1 to promptly process and refund the security amount of Rs.300/- to the Complainant, which it did not. However, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 fairly conceded that it (Opposite Party No.1) is in the process of refunding the security amount of Rs.300/-, which shall be refunded to the Complainant in due course of time. A specific plea qua this has also been made by the Opposite Party No.1 in Para No.4 of its written statement. To our mind, non-refund of the security amount, to the Complainant, by the Opposite Party No.1, despite umpteen number of personal entreaties and requests, amounts to deficiency in service and is also an unfair trade practice.

 

14.      It is also worth mentioning that Opposite Parties did not bother to give any reply to the legal notice (Annexure C-5) served upon them. We are of the concerted opinion that since the Complainant has been harassed by the Opposite Parties on account of the aforesaid acts, therefore, he is also entitled to be compensated for deficiency in service. Had, Opposite Parties been vigilant in refunding the amount promptly, complainant would not have been put to unnecessary harassment and mental tension, who otherwise had to knock at the door of this Forum for seeking redressal by expending money on litigation.

 

15.      The Complainant in the prayer clause of his Complaint has prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to restore his mobile connection bearing No. 9569772572. The Opposite Party No.2 has specifically urged that the said mobile connection cannot be restored by it as the number has since been returned to the Opposite Party No.1. In this backdrop, we are inclined not to pass any orders for restoration of the disputed mobile connection in favour of the Complainant, since it was the Complainant himself, who on being dis-satisified with the services rendered by the Opposite Party No.1, chose to port his mobile number to the Opposite Party No.2. 

 

16.      In view of the above discussion, the complainant has produced cogent evidence to prove unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. We find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed, with the following directions: -

 

[i]   Opposite Party No.1 shall refund the security amount of Rs.300/- to the Complainant;

[ii]   Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall pay Rs.2500/- each as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him, along with Rs.2500/- each as cost of litigation;

 

17.      This order be complied with by Opposite Parties No.1 to 2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr. No.(ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(i) above.

 

18.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

04^th  May, 2017                                                    Sd/-    

(S.S. PANESAR)

       PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

 

 

“Dutt”