BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.307 of 2016                                                               

                                                            Date of Institution         :    2.12.2016

                                                          Date of decision   :    24.4.2017

Sahil Gaat aged about 27 years son of Shri Subhash Gatt, resident of Parvati School Street, Aggarsain Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                             ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

Tata Docomo, 47, Dwarka Puri, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its authorized person.

                                                                        ...…Opposite party.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ……………PRESIDING MEMBER

                  SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER. 

Present:       Sh. Anuj Ganeriwala,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite party exparte.

          ORDER

          Case of complainant in brief is that he is the user/subscriber of post paid connection bearing No.92154-66646 issued by op and has been using the said connection since for last more than two years. In this manner, he is the consumer of op. That since the day of issuance of said connection, he has been making the payment of the bills issued to him by the op and he has never been declared defaulter in making the payment of bills. It is further averred that on 18.7.2016, the complainant applied for portability service telephonically and requested the op to convert his aforesaid connection from post paid (Tata) to prepaid (Airtel) and on the request of complainant, it was assured to him that the said request shall be considered soon and his aforesaid connection shall be converted into Airtel prepaid. A new sim bearing No.8991960815903307123U was also issued to him by the op and at that time it was advised to him that old sim should not be removed from the mobile rather the same shall be kept in the mobile until the receipt of the call from the op. It is further averred that acting upon the advise of the op, he kept the aforesaid sim in the mobile and kept on waiting for the call from the side of op but to the surprise of complainant the sim issued to him was never started even after passing of a sufficient time and the same has never been started till date. The complainant approached the op and requested to do needful but instead of allowing his request, the op issued a bill of Rs.2400/- to the complainant. On receipt of the bill of Rs.2400/-, the complainant immediately contacted the op and requested to withdraw the said bill but op openly asserted that the request made by the complainant was left to be considered inadvertently. It was further asked by op that said amount of bill has to be paid by him failing which the op shall be constrained to launch legal proceedings against the complainant, whereas as per his request it was upon the op to consider his request and to convert his said connection into prepaid (Airtel) and op has got no legal right to issue any such bill to the complainant and is also not entitled to launch any legal proceeding against the complainant for having no fault on his part. After receipt of the bill, it is the complainant who had been making rounds to the office of op and has been making requests to withdraw the bill and to consider his request by starting his new sim but the op is adamant and has been threatening the complainant to immediately deposit the expenses of the said bill. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the op to start new sim and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of unnecessary harassment, further to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as penalty on account of deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice and also to pay litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party but none appeared on its behalf despite due service and therefore, op was proceeded against exparte.

3.                In evidence of complainant, copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 have been tendered.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The above said pleadings of the complainant are unrebutted and unchallenged as the opposite party after due service of notice did not bother to appear before this Forum and opted to be proceeded against exparte. The contention of the complainant that he was issued a new sim bearing No.8991960815903307123U by the opposite party in order to convert his connection from postpaid (Tata) to prepaid (Airtel) is supported from the photograph of the sim on which above said serial number of the sim is mentioned. The complainant has placed on file a copy of e-mail sent to him by the opposite party which is dated 2.12.2016 and is a reminder to pay an amount of Rs.2466/- to the opposite party wherein previous outstanding has been shown as Rs.1896/- and last bill outstanding has been shown as Rs.569.26/- and it has been asked to the complainant to pay immediately to start services on his number. But in our view the demand of said amount has been wrongly raised by the opposite party because the complainant already applied for portability services of his above said connection to the opposite party on 18.7.2016, therefore, there is no justification in raising the demand of Rs.2466/- from the complainant on 2.12.2016. Had there been any previous outstanding against the complainant, the op would not have issued new sim to the complainant. The opposite party has caused negligence and deficiency in service by not accepting the request of portability of connection in time and further caused harassment to the complainant by raising delayed unjustified demand of Rs.2466/- and due to the act and conduct of the op, the complainant has been deprived from using his above said mobile number through portability. The complainant is not liable to pay any amount to the opposite party.

6.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to start new sim of the complainant immediately after portability from postpaid (Tata) to prepaid (Airtel) and we also direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in lump sum to the complainant for harassment including litigation expenses within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant would be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till actual realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.      

Announced in open Forum.                           Presiding Member,

Dated:24.4.2017.                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.