JUDGEMENT
The facts of the complaint in brief is that the complainant had lost his mobile on 05.10.2016 and he had lodged an FIR with the Town P.S., Bhawanipatna and submitted the FIR copy to the Opp.Party No.1 and prayed to issue a duplicate SIM vide No.9437000888 but the OP No.1 refused to provide the duplicate one. The complainant also appeal to the Opp.Party No.2 and 3 but there was no response from them. Finding no other option the complainant filed this case before this Forum and prayed to direct the Ops to issue a duplicate SIM as the complainant is a Contractor and he had some important contact number with the SIM and further direct the Ops to pay monetary compensation of Rs.30,000/-. Hence, this complaint.
Being noticed the Opp.Party 1,2 & 3 filed their written version separately.
The Opp.Party No.1 averred that the Mob No.94370 00888 had been working in the name of the Complainant Sri Samir Kumar Padhi, Bhawanipatna since 11.08.2005 on BSNL post paid consumer and subsequently the connection was converted to BSNL Prepaid connection. Thereafter the complainant according to his own will ported out to other mobile operator and the port out component appears in the system on 06.04.2016 and disconnect order appears on 11.04.2016. Hence, prayed to consider the case on the basis of the above information.
It is averred by the Opp.Party No.2 that the Opposite Party No.2 mentioned as DDG(Term Cell) is not a telecom service provider, however it is field unit of Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Government of India . The complainant neither has any business relation with the Opp.Party No.2 nor the department provides any goods and service and as such the name of the Opp.Party NO.2 may be deleted from this complaint.
It is averred by the Opp.Party No.3 that the Opp.Party No.3 is a statutory body set up under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 to regulate telecom and broadcasting services and protect the interests of service providers and consumers of telecom sector. As per regulations made by the Opp.Party-TRAI Act,1997 “ No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine”. In the instant as the Opp.Party No.3 is neither a consumer nor a service provider to the complainant and therefore provisions of the C.P.Act,1986 are not applicable to opposite party No.3. The TRAI Act,1997 does not envisage redressal of individual consumer complaints. The Opp.Party No.3 has mandated a two tier grievance redressal framework of complaint centre and Appellate Authority to be set up for redressal of consumer grievance by all Telecom Service Providers. The petitioner’s complaint dt.01.11.2016 received by OP No.3 was forwarded to M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. on 11.11.2016. In view of the above this complaint is not maintainable either in law or against the Opp.Party No.3 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
F I N D I N G
After going through the contention of both the parties and hering their respective argument the only point consideration is whether the Ops are deficient in service. The Ops appeared through their respective advocate and filed written version. On perusal of the written version it is found that the OP No.2 contended that he is not the service provider and had no connection with the allegation of the complainant. The Opp.Party No.1 took the stand that the telephone number was post paid and subsequently onverted to pre paid and that the complainant ported out to other service rovider. But the OP NO.1 did not file any document to substantiate their stand. The OP NO.3 did not challenged the allegation but only challenged the jurisdiction of the complainant. As per the provisionof Section 1 Sub Section(4) and Section 3 of the C.P.Act this Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
On the basis of the above contentions of the parties and document available on record it is seen that the complainant has lodge complain before the Police soon after the loss of mobile along with the SIM Card and also wrote to TDM, Bhawanipatna, DDG, Bhubaneswar and Secretary TRAI, New Delhi but none of them responded to the complaint and also did not appear before the Consumer Counseling Centre for amicable settlement. They appeared and contested only before this Forum.
So in absence of any valid documentary support to their contention the OP has failed to substantiate that there is no deficiency of service on their part and hence the complainant’s allegation is believed and we found that he has suffered a lot for non supply of duplicate SIM in time. In view of the above discussion we allowed the petition in part and hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service and directed to supply the SIM bearing No.9437000888 to the complainant and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards the inconvenience and loss of business due to non supply of duplicate SIM. The Ops are further directed to comply the above order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open forum today on this 31st day of December,2018 under the seal and signature of this forum.
Member President
Documents relied upon:
By the complainant:
- Copy of Voter ID of complainant By the OP:
- Copy of complaint to IIC, Bhawanipatna , P.S.
- Copy of application addressed to DDG, Bhubaneswar by the complainant.
- Copy of complaint filed in Consumer Cancelling Centre, Bhawanipatna.
By the Opp. Party:
- Copy of The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act,1997.
- Copy of Appeal No.37 of 2000 & Appeal No.491/2009
- Copy of written complaints details of the complainant.
- Copy of application of the complainant
- Copy of Voter ID of complainant.
President
