THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Complaint No. 242-14
Date of Institution : 5.5.2014
Date of Decision : 16.2.2015
Mr.Rohit Arora S/o late Sh.Kamlesh Kumar r/o 16, New Garden Colony, Lawrence Road, Amritsar
.....Complainant
Vs.
Tata Teleservices Ltd., C-125, Industrial Area, Phase 8, Mohali, Punjab 160071
Tata Docomo (Customer Care Centre) Shop No. 19, Deep Complex, Court Road, Amritsar -143001
.....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainants : Sh.Prateek Sodhi,Adv
For the opposite parties : Sh. Rupesh Mahindru,Adv.
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member & Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Rohit Arora under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that in the year 2006 he bought a prepaid Mobile No.9217111140 in his name from an authorized dealer of opposite party No.1 for his personal use. According to the company the said number suddenly stopped receiving signal/network service on 10th January. The matter was reported
-2-
to the customer care helpline of the company. The concerned official expressed his inability to deal with the problem and then complainant visited local customer care centre personally alongwith the concerned sim card. The complainant visited opposite party No.2 on 10th January 2013 and explained the problem who referred the same to branch head Mr. Sunil. Mr. Sunil alongwith other official namely Vikrant dealt with the problem, reported by the complainant , who assured that the rectification process has been initiated and the same shall be carried upon within a resonable time. Complainant has alleged that even after the elapse of more than one month, no action was taken. The said employees also referred the matter to its senior official at Mohali by the name of Ms.Preeti with the contact No.0172-6615151, who did nothing but wasting the time of the complainant. The complainant then served legal notice dated 21.2.2014 upon opposite party No.1 through e-mail and to opposite party No.1 through registered post vide which they replied that the connection has been disconnected and cannot be reactivated due to internal parameters as per multiple connection guidelines issued by the Govt.of India . It was furter replied that an individual subscriber is not allowed to take more than 9 mobile connections as per policies of Govt.of India . Complainant has alleged that no details of such 9 or more connections has been given by the opposite party. Complainant has alleged that due to the conduct of the officials of the opposite parties No.1 & 2, the complainant's number is still not resumed . Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to resume the No. i.e. 9217111140 to the complainant. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice , opposite parties appeared and filed written version in which it was admitted that the services of Del were disconnected on 10th January 2014. It was submitted that whenever complainant approached the opposite parties, either
-3-
through customer care or personal visit, the reason for disconnection was duly explained to him. It was submitted that as the Del in question had been disconnected under the guidelines framed by the DOT (Deptt.of Telecommunication) , as such the opposite parties did not have any authority to reactivate the Del until and unless, complainant would have completed the anomalies, found during the audit by the TERM cell. A letter dated 13.3.2014 was issued to the complainant in response to the legal notice of the complainant and in which reason of the disconnection was duly explained to the complainant. While submitting that as the Del has been disconnected under the instructions from a Govt.Authority/body, as such the company is not liable for any deficiency of service. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavits Ex.C-1 and C-1/A, copy of legal notice dated 21.2.2014 Ex.C-2, postal receipt Ex.C-3, copies of e-mails Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, postal letter dated 13.3.2013 Ex.C-6.
4. Opposite parties tendered affidavit of Amandeep Kaur,Asstt.Manager Ex.OP1.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant has a pre-paid number 9217111140 from opposite party No.1 for his personal use in 2006. Since then, complainant has been using the aforesaid mobile number and has been regularly making the payments to opposite party No.1 through their authorized centres. However, on 10.1.2014 suddenly the aforesaid mobile number stopped working/network service. The complainant approached the opposite parties through
-4-
customer care helpline of the company. But the concerned official expressed his inability to deal with the problem. Then complainant went to opposite party No.2 office on 10.1.2014 where one Mr. Sunil ,Branch Head alongwith Mr. Vikrant another employee dealt with the problem reported by the complainant and assured that the rectification process has been initiated and the same shall be carried upon within a reasonable time. Even after the lapse of a period of more than one month, no action was taken on the complaint of the complainant. The complainant served legal notice dated 21.2.2014 vide e-mail on their official ID i.e. 'listen@tatadocomo.com' Ex.C-2 as well as through registered post , postal receipt of which is Ex.C-3 . The complainant received reply through e-mail dated 21.2.2014 Ex.C-4 vide which the opposite party told the complainant that the connection has been disconnected and cannot be reactivated due to internal parameters as per multiple connection guidelines by the Govt. Of India as an individual subscriber is not allowed to take more than 9 mobile connections as per policies of Govt. Of India. The complainant submitted that he has no other connection what to speak of more than 9 mobile connections. The complainant received another e-mail Ex.C-5 on the same ground. Opposite party also sent reply to the legal notice to the complainant, copy of which is Ex.C-6 in which the opposite party took the plea that Del in question was disconnected as there were certain gaps found in the CAF (Customer Application Form) and documents submitted that CAF company was instructed by the TERM (Telecom Enforcement, Resource and Monitoring) Cell to disconnect the services of Del of the complainant, hence this disconnection. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant filled in the CAF (Customer Application Form) in the year 2006, whereas his mobile connection was disconnected in the year 2014, no notice was given to the complainant that he has left gaps in the CAF in the year 2006 nor the complainant was asked to fill in the gaps , if any left in the CAF nor
-5-
any opportunity of being heard was given to the complainant before disconecting his mobile connection which was the number given by the complainant to all his relatives, friends, near and dears. He, therefore, prayed that opposite party by disconnecting the mobile connection of the complainant without giving him any opportunity of being heard tantamounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant was informed that the Del of the complainant was disconnected in order to comply with the directions issued by the Govt.Authorities (Department of Tele-communication) hereinafter to be called DOT, to all telecom operators. The DOT has created TERM (Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monitoring) Cells. DOT has issued certain guidelines regarding CAF (Customer Application Form) and documents submitted alongwith the CAF which need to be followed while activation of any Del. The audit party of DOT chosen some CAFs at random and audited the same. In case of any disparity is found in the audited CAF and/or documents, all the telecom operators were issued instructions to disconnect the service of that Del. The opposite party further submitted that intimation was given to the customer to rectify the anomalies through SMS. Such SMS was also sent to the complainant. However, the complainant did not fulfill the requirement which led to disconnection. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion we have come to the conclusion that the complainant had obtained pre-paid Mobile connection No. 9217111140 in his name in the year 2006 from authorized dealer of the telecom company i.e. opposite party for his personal use after filling in and completing all the formalities. The complainant has been regularly making the payment to opposite party No. 1 through their authorized centres. However, on 10.1.2014 the aforesaid mobile
-6-
number of the complainant stopped working/network service. The complainant approached the opposite party but the opposite party could not explain the reason for the disconnection of the Del of the complainant. The complainant served legal notice dated 21.2.2014 upon the opposite parties through registered post, postal receipt of which is Ex.C-3 as well as through e-mail Ex.C-2 . The complainant received reply from the opposite parties through e-mail dated 21.2.2014 Ex.C-4 in which the opposite parties told the complainant that his mobile connection has been disconnected due to internal parameters as per multiple connection guidelines, issued by the Govt.of India and as per these guidelines an individual subscriber is not allowed to take more than 9 mobile connections thereby alleging that the complainant has more than 9 mobile connections, as such his mobile connection has been disconnected . Opposite parties further submitted through this e-mail Ex.C-4 that the mobile connection of the complainant canot be reactivated due to aforesaid reason. He also received another e-mail in this respect dated 21.2.2014 Ex.C-5. However, in written reply to the legal notice sent by the complainant, given by the opposite parties to the complainant dated 13.3.2014 Ex.C-6, opposite party has taken a different plea regarding disconnection of the mobile connection of the complainant that on the audit of the CAF (Customer Application Form) and the documents submitted by the complainant by the audit party, it was found that there were certain gaps in the CAF and documents submitted by the complainant with the CAF and the company was instructed by the TERM Cell of the department of Telecommunication to disconnect the services of the Del of the complainant, as such the mobile connection of the complainant has been disconnected. From the perusal of the record, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant filled in , signed and submitted CAF to the opposite parties at the time of taking the mobile connection in the year 2006 and he also submitted all the relevant documents alongwith CAF to the opposite parties in the year 2006 and the opposite parties
-7-
issued the aforesaid mobile connection to the complainant in the year 2006, whereas the mobile connection of the complainant was disconnected on 10.1.2014 on the ground firstly that the complainant has more than 9 mobile connections which is against the Terms and conditions issued by the TERM Cell of DOT. But when the opposite parties came to know that the complainant has only one mobile connection, then they changed their version that the mobile connection of the complainant was disconnected as there were gaps found in the CAF submitted by the complainant, on the basis of the report of the audit party. But the complainant was not served with any report of the audit party nor he was informed as to which gaps were left by the complainant in the CAF nor the complainant was given any opportunity to fill in the gaps nor the complainant was given any notice that there were gaps found in the CAF submitted by the complainant in the year 2006 and he was asked to fill in the said gaps left by the complainant within the stipulated period otherwise his mobile connection shall be disconnected . As such it stands fully proved on record that the complainant was not given any opportunity of being heard or to fill in the gaps, if any left by the complainant and that too after 8 years nor the opposite party has submitted any report of the audit party which found the gaps left by the complainant in the CAF which prove that the opposite parties have concocted/created this story just to save their skin and as such the story propounded by the opposite parties is totally un-believable and not based on any facts or documents or any cogent evidence. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. Opposite parties have submitted that this mobile connection number cannot be restored to the complainant as it has already been issued to some other person. By disconnecting this mobile connection number, the complainant has been harassed and he suffered lot in his profession as well as in his relations through this mobile number with his friends, relatives and other general public.
-8-
9. Consequetly we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10000/- and litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of orders. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
10. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy
pendency of the cases in this Forum.
16.2.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member
(Anoop Sharma)
Member
