BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 166 of 2016.
Date of Institution: 08.08.2016.
Date of Order: 31.01.2019.
Raj Kumar Dudeja son of Shri Kanwar Bhan, resident of 153, BTM Road, Chirnjiv Colony, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Reliance Communication Limited, H Block, 1st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai-400710, Maharashtra.
2. Reliance Communication Limited, Thane Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai-400710, Maharashtra.
3. Mr. Virender Bhandari, Reliance Communication Limited, 1st Floor, Tower F, DLF building, Plot No. 2, Rajiv Ghandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh-160101.
4. Meenu Mobile World, Circular Road, near Old Bus Stand, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani through its Proprietor.
…...Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.
Present: Shri Mukesh Gulia, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the OP No. 1 to 3.
(OP Nos. 1 to 3 already exparte).
Shri Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the OP No. 4.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the case are that he is running business of event management in Banquet Hall, run Cable TV Network and weekly news paper at Bhiwani and Charkhi Dadri. It is alleged that the complainant had purchased telephone connection Nos. 1664320000, 1664320123 & 1250320000 with handsets from the OPs for business and paid bills regularly. It is further alleged that complainant receive a call from the OP customer care executive, who told that now company launch 4G network and old handsets not works properly on 4G network and asked for change of handsets. It is further alleged that when the complainant approached the OPs for change of handsets, the executive of the OPs told that you must change your numbers with handsets, if you change only handsets then your numbers not works with new handsets. It is further alleged that ultimately on 18.5.2016 all the telephone numbers were closed by the OP company without any information. It is further alleged that on enquiry, the executive of the OPs told that he should take new numbers and all the above said numbers were closed and sold the same to other party. It is further alleged that due to unavailability of above said numbers, the whole business of the complainant goes down and thus, he suffered loss in his business due to closure of above said numbers. It is further alleged that a legal notice dated 8.7.2016 was also served upon the OPs, but to no effect. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the present complaint.
2. On notice, no one appeared on behalf of OPs No. 1 to 3 despite service and the OPs No. 1 to 3 were proceeded as exparte by the Forum vide its order dated 26.10.2016.
3. OP No. 4 appeared and contested the complaint by filing the contested written statement denying all the allegations of the complainant. It is alleged that the answering OP has been given the franchise on behalf of Reliance Communication Limited during the month of June, 2015 relating to City Bhiwani only. It is further alleged that telephone numbers in question known as FWP hereinafter called as Fixed Wireless Phone. It is further alleged that now this facility has been stopped by the Reliance Company from 17.4.2016, because this technology called CDMA technology has been closed by the company and in this regard all the customers have been informed through special call by the Reliance Company. It is further alleged that the answering OP has no concerned with telephone numbers in question, because neither the answering OP was having any franchise at the time of allotment of telephone numbers in question nor any documents produced by the complainant in this regard, hence, there is involvement of the part of the answering OP in releasing or discontinuing numbers in question. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in support of his case placed on record Annexure C1 to Annexure C9 in his evidence to prove his case and closed the evidence.
5. Ld. counsel for the OP No. 4 placed on record Annexure R1 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. Ld. counsel for the OPs No. 1 to 3 contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try & entertain the present complaint and placed his reliance upon (2004) 4 Supreme court Cases 671, titled as Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd. He further argued that the complainant is entitled to only the amount as to actual loss or injury suffered and placed his reliance upon IV (2006) CPJ 377, Delhi State Consumer Commission, New Delhi, titled as Yashpal Vs SSG Pharma (P) Ltd.
8. The argument advanced by the ld. counsel for the OPs No. 1 to 3 that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain & decide the present complaint is not tenable, because the telephone numbers in question were being used at Bhiwani and the bills of the same were also being paid by complainant at Bhiwani, so this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain & decide the present complaint. The further argument of ld. counsel for the OPs No. 1 to 3 is that the complainant is entitled to only the amount as to actual loss or injury suffered is also of no use for him, because the complainant has only claimed the compensation on account of loss of his business due to closure of telephone numbers in question and on account of suffering mental agony due to act and conduct of the OPs. Therefore, the citation shown by the ld. counsel for the OPs No. 1 to 3 are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
9. Moreover, the complainant has miserable failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.4 by placing on record any copy of bill issued by the OP No. 4 to show that telephone numbers in question were purchased or installed through OP No. 4.
10. After having gone through the material available on the file, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No. 1 to 3. The complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record certain documents i.e. copies of payments of bills i.e. Annexure C1 to C8 and copy of legal notice as Annexure C9. The OPs No. 1 to 3 have failed in informing the complainant well in advance about the closure of the telephone numbers in question. On the other hand, the OPs No. 1 to 3 have failed in appearing before this Forum despite the service of summons upon them and were proceeded as exparte vide order dated 26.10.2016, hence, the written statement filed by them is not being read without setting aside exparte order by the competent court of law. Notwithstanding in the interest of justice, we have decide this complaint on merits to consider all the contentions raised by the OPs No. 1 to 3 at the time of arguments, as mentioned in Para No. 7 of this order, which are not based on law, facts & circumstances of the case as mentioned in Para No. 8 of this order. The OPs No.1 to 3 have just trying to avoid their responsibility by taking false pleas through their counsel at the time of arguments.
11. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs and the OPs No. 1 to 3 are directed to:-
i. To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, loss of income and punitive damages, due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs No. 1 to 3.
-
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 31.01.2019.
(Renu Chaudhary) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
