PARDEEP KUMAR filed a consumer case on 24 Dec 2015 against SANTEK PHARMA in the Ambala Consumer Court. The case no is CC/241/2011 and the judgment uploaded on 28 Dec 2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.
Complaint Case No.:241 of 2011
Date of Institution : 03.08.2011
Date of decision : 24.12.2015
Pardeep Kumar son of Shri Om Parkash R/o H.No.2116, Khattar Wara, Ambala City.
……Complainant
Versus
1. SantekPharma through its Authorized Signatory Atul Kumar,SCO-7,Sector-7, Urban Estate, Behind Galaxy Mall, Ambala City.
2. Virgin Mobile through its Authorized Signatory, Mall Road, Karnal;
Present correct address: Virgin Mobile, Sector-3, Industrial Area, Karnal.
2A. Tata Teleservices Limited, C-125, Phase VIII, Industrial Area, Mohali 160071, Punjab, through its Authorized signatory (as per Amended Title). ……Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.
SH. PUSHPINDER KUMAR, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Bharara, Adv. counsel for complainant.
Sh. Sandeep Sachdeva, Adv. counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. I.S. Gill, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.
ORDER.
Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a Tata Indicom Post Paid connection bearing No.92155-55666 from Meet Ji communication Ambala City in a sum of Rs.5000/- in the year 2010. On 05.03.2011, complainant sent request of Mobile Number Portability(MNP) and his request was accepted on the same day as the complainant wanted to convert his mobile No.92155-55666 from Tata Indicom to Virgin Mobile and thus he submitted required documents i.e. One Passport size photograph and photocopy of voter I-Card to OP No.1. Accordingly, on 20.03.2011, the said mobile number converted into Virgin Mobile and complainant used it for about two and half months but on 31.05.2011, the said mobile number was disconnected and on enquiry , OP No.1 told that his ID is not with the OP No.2. Then again complainant handed over his ID (Voter Card) on 05.06.2011 but even than his mobile was not started. Thereafter, complainant talked to OP No.2 but of no use. It has been further contended by the complainant that he is a businessman and was using this number for business purpose and because of stopping said mobile number, he had to suffer huge financial loss besides harassment and mental agony. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by him seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.
2. Upon notice, Ops appeared through their counsels. Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint, concealment of true facts and mis-joinder & non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it has been urged that Virgin Mobile Company has authorized Mynd Solutions Pvt. Ltd., a private agency to collect documents from the retailer/distributor on their behalf and the said documents were given to that agency by the answering OP. Further it has been submitted that the complainant again submitted documents on 10.06.2011 & 15.06.2011 and the same were again handed over to the said agency on the same day and activation of the phone number is not in the hand of OP No.1 rather it is entirely the responsibility of OP No.2-company.
OP No.2 submitted separate written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint under the provisions of C.P. Act since the matter pertaining to and arising out of Telecom Services is out of the purview of Ld. Forum because all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules and on merits it has been stated that complainant was a post paid subscriber of Tata Teleservices Ltd. and the company has charged only Rs.500/- from the complainant as vanity number charges and Rs.4500/- was waived off at the time of taking the connection. It has been admitted by OP No.2 that complainant opted for MNP from M/s Tata Teleservices Ltd. to M/s Virgin Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. on 15.03.2011 which was allowed by the answering OP on 19.03.2011, however, it is submitted that complainant did not submit the complete legible requisite documents as per process inspite of reminders to him and constrainfully the services to DEL were disconnected on 31.05.2012. Thus the answering OP has prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. To prove its case, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Tarun Khurana, Senior Executive-Legal, Tata Teleservices Ltd., C-125, Phase VIII, Industrial Focal Point Mohali as Anneuxre RX and closed the evidence. Op No.1 failed to tender any evidence despite various opportunities, hence, evidence of OP No.1 was closed by court order on 17.03.2015.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The main grievance of the complainant is that he submitted requisite documents with OP No.1 for availing Mobile Number Portability to convert his mobile no.92155-55666 to Virgin company i.e. OP No.2 and the OP No.1 has admitted in his written statement that Virgin Mobile Company i.e. OP No.2 has authorized a private agency to collect the documents from Retailer/Distributor and the documents so provided by the complainant on 05.03.2011 were handed over to the said agency on the same day. Further, it has been admitted by Op No.2 in the written statement that the complainant applied to M/s Tata Teleservices Ltd. for MNP (Mobile Number Portability) on 15.03.2011 which was allowed by them on 19.03.2011 and further submitted that due to non-submission of the complete legible documents as per process by the complainant, they disconnected the services to the complainant on 31.05.2012. Further to rebut the contention of OP that services relating to telephone are out of the purview of Consumer Protection Act, counsel for complainant submitted a case law rendered by Hon’ble Megahlaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shillong, case titled as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & others Vs. Cantonment Ex Service Resettlement Association 2015(1) CLT Pg. 431 wherein it has been held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) & Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, Rules 443-Disconnection of telephone-Whether BSNL can disconnect the telephone of subscriber on non-payment of bill, without notice? Held-No-BSNL not being a ‘Telegraph Authority” it cannot draw on the power of authority conferred by Rules 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 to unilaterally debar/disconnect any telephone without giving due notice to a subscriber, even if the dues are not paid on time- it is required to act within the ambit of the cannons of natural justice and to give reasonable prior notice before resorting to any such disconnection, whether partial by barring certain facilities or in totality, unless there is any such empowering clause in the contract/agreement between BSNL and the subscriber-Appeal dismissed.”
After hearing the parties as well as appreciating the pleadings of the parties & case law referred above, we have come to the conclusion that it is a case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2 because when the OP No.2 granted Mobile Number Portability (MNP) to the complainant, they might have obviously checked the documents and deeming the documents as correct, the said portability was allowed to the complainant but after providing of services by OP No.2, it is neither legal nor justified from their mouth that complainant has not submitted legible documents and further stopping of services by disconnecting of Mobile Number 9215555666 on this very ground is not only a deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 rather it is an unfair trade practice on their part. Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed and Op No.2 is directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-
The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the Op No.2 within the stipulated period otherwise the awarded amounts shall fetch simple interest @ Rs.9% per annum for the period of default. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED:24.12.2015 Sd/-
(A.K. SARDANA)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(PUSHPENDER KUMAR) MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.