DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                              Consumer Complaint No.551 of 2016

                                         Date of institution:  06.09.2016                                                Date of decision   :  04.12.2017

Manoj Kumar son of Rameshwar Dass, C/o H.No. 2159, Sector 41-C, Chandigarh. Permanent Address: Ward No. 3 Safidon City, District Jind, Haryana.

……..Complainant

Versus

Authorized Signatory, Tata Teleservices Limited, C-125, Industrial Area, Phase-8, Mohali, Punjab-160071.

                                                                 …..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present :           Complainant in person.                                                    Sh. Anuj Kohli, Counsel for the OP.                

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Manoj Kumar has filed this complaint against the Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “the OP”) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.            The complainant was using TATA DOCOMO number 94671-24888 since 4 years and the same was ported from BSNL to TATA DOCOMO by submitting documents which were verified by the OP for activation. On 19.08.2016 the complainant was surprised to saw that there was no network in his said mobile number and the same was not working. The complainant was unable to receive or to make any call and found that the number was totally dead.  When the complainant contacted the OP through e-mail and chat helpline, he was told that the said mobile number has been disconnected due to non submitting of documents on given time. It was also stated by the OP that a time was given to the complainant for submitting the documents, but no proper intimation was given to the complainant prior to disconnection of the said number.   The service on the said mobile number was suddenly disconnected by the OP due to which he lost more than Rs.500/- as a balance amount as well as he is unable to use Paytm balance. The complainant so many times requested the OP to activate the said mobile number but it failed to do so. The act and conduct of the OP amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund Rs.500/- along with interest, Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges and Rs.80,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant.

3.             The complaint is contested by the OP. In reply to the complaint, the OP raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable and the same was filed with ulterior motive of gaining extraneous benefits from the OP. As regards the facts of the complaint, OP stated that in order to deal with telecom network security issues, DOT (Department of Telecommunications) has created TERM (Telecom Enforcement, Resource and Monitoring) cells and it issued certain guidelines regarding Customer Application Form(CAF) and documents submitted along with the CAF, which need to be followed while activation of any del. Monthly audits of telecom operators are conducted by these TERM cells whereupon some random CAF's and/documents of certain dels are chosen and audited. DOT has issued clear instructions to all telecom operators to disconnect the service of a Del, in case any disparity is found in the audited CAF and/or documents.  Prior to disconnection, as per practice, an SMS is sent to all such dels intimating requirements with a reasonable time limit to rectify the anomalies/submit afresh/additional documents in absence of which del is disconnected. As per record, such SMS was also sent to the complainant, however, complainant did not fulfill the requirement, which lead to disconnection. It is further stated that with a view to settle the matter amicably, services to Del were recreated/activated on 09.06.2016 with commitment from complainant to comply with the requirements of audit at the earliest, but the complainant did not pay heed to requirement laid by the OP company owing to DOT directions and preferred to port out the services on 14.09.2016. The official of the OP credited the balance amount of Rs.500/- in another del number 9217572396, which was being used by the complainant, whereas the available balance at the time of disconnection of service was Rs.387.65. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             In order to prove his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/1, copies of chat history Ex. C-1, copies of emails Ex. C-2 & C-3, notice Ex. C-4, emails Ex. C-5 & C-6, bus tickets Ex. C-7, email Ex. C-8 and copy of ID card Ex. C-9. In rebuttal counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Deputy Manager Legal, Ex. OP1/1 and copies of emails along with chat history Ex. OP-1.

5.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and have also gone through the pleadings, evidence as well as written arguments of the parties.

6.             The complainant had got ported his Mobile No.94671-24888 from BSNL to the OP about 4 years ago. At the time of getting ported this number the complainant had submitted all the documents with the OP who after verification of these documents activated the number of the complainant.  However, on 19.08.2016 the mobile connection of the complainant was disconnected by the OP without any notice to him.  When the complainant contacted the OP he was informed that due to non submission of documents on given time the connection has been disconnected.  The counsel for the OP has argued that before disconnection, the complainant was sent a SMS for submitting the documents but there is no such material produced by the OP on record from which this fact can be proved. The complainant has submitted the chat history Ex.C-1 wherein it has been informed to him that as per TRAI for every 6 months documents will be verified.  Vide e-mail dated 23.08.2016 Ex.C-2 the OP has informed the complainant that they are unable to restore the number from their end.  Ultimately, the OP credited the balance of Rs.500/- in the other number i.e. 9217572396 of the complainant. Thus, this act of crediting balance of Rs.500/- by the OP per se proves that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP in disconnection of the mobile of the complainant without prior intimation to him.  The complainant has stated that he was using this mobile number for his banking purposes and various other purposes and due non functioning of this number he has suffered mental agony and harassment. Thus, the complainant has to be compensated for the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OP pay to the complainant lump sum  compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) on account of mental agony and harassment  and litigation cost The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.            

                The OP is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 04.12.2017    

                                           (A.P.S.Rajput)                 

President

        (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member