Delhi

East Delhi

CC/68/2015

KAPIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA INDICOM - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 68/15

 

Shri Kapil

S/o Shri Nand Lal

R/o A-47, New Seelampur

Delhi – 110 053                                                                              ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

Tata Indicom Pvt. Ltd.

K-62, Chachi Building

Krishna Nagar, Delhi – 110 051                                                    ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 11.03.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 02.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 21.12.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by the complainant, Shri Kapil against Tata Indicom Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Reliance (OP-2) with allegation of deficiency in services.

2.        Facts in brief are that the complainant had been using the Tata Indicom No. 9218705322 from past 10 years.  Representative of OP-2 convinced to get the number ported from Tata Indicom to OP-2.  Not satisfied  with the services of OP-2, the complainant again reverted to OP-1.  The complainant had paid all the bill of OP-1 and OP-2.  The connection was activated by OP-1, but the said number was disconnected after a month of joining of network of OP-1.  When the complainant contacted OP-1, he was informed that there were arrears, after that they were duly paid by the complainant.  Despite payment, the said connection was not activated.  When the complainant contacted OP-1 and OP-2, he was informed that the said number was active.  Later on, the complainant again contacted OP-1, he was informed that his number had been deactivated and could not be activated.  Email dated 27.11.2014 was sent to OPs, but they did not accede to his plea for activation of his number.  Feeling aggrieved the complainant has prayed for activation of no. 9213705322, Rs. 70,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation. 

            Statement of account of the complainant, customer receipt dated 24.10.2014, print out of account management are annexed with the complaint. 

3.        OPs were served with the notice of the complaint.  OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte as none appeared on their behalf.  Reply was filed by OP-2 where the objections regarding the jurisdiction of the consumer forum was raised.  It was stated that S-7B of the Indian Telegraph Act barred the jurisdiction of the consumer fora to entertain complainant against Telecommunication service providers.  It was further submitted that as per the complainant, no relief was claimed against OP-2 as the number was ported to OP-1 and the number was activated for one month.

4.        Parties were directed to file evidence.  The complainant did not file any evidence despite opportunity.  However, affidavit of                 Shri Ashish Handa, Power of Attorney holder for OP-2 was filed and the contents of the WS were reaffirmed on oath. 

During proceedings, OP-2 was also proceeded ex-parte.   

5.        We have heard the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  As far as preliminary objection that the jurisdiction of this forum was barred by Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph, it has been decided by National Commission in Bharti Hexacom Ltd. Vs. Komal Prakash, RP No. 1228 of 2013, wherein it was held that “the powers of a “Telegraph Authority” are now not vested in the private telecom service providers as is the case here, and also in the BSNL, Section 7B of the said Act will have no application and, therefore, the Forum constituted under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are  competent to entertain the disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers”.  Similar view was taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Vivek Bhardwaj Vs. Vodafone Essar East Ltd. & 3 Ors. F.A. No. 193/2014, decided on 28.11.2016.  Thus, this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

            As the complainant has not filed any evidence by way of affidavit, he has failed to prove the contents of his complaint.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution.  There is no order as to cost. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President