Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/64

Sri Gitesh Ranjan Kar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The I/C Bharati Hexacon Ltd. and others - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Bhattacharjee, Mr.K.Nath, Mr. P.R. Choudhury

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 64 of 2014

Sri Gitesh Ranjan Kar,
S/O- Lt. Monoranjan Kar,
Abhoynagar, Agartala,
District- West Tripura.         ............Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______
        
1. The I/C. Bharati Hexacom Ltd.
Modrina Mansion, Laitumkh,
Shilong- 793003.

2. The In-charge,
Bharati Airtel Limited,
Bharati House, Sixmile, 
Guwahati-781022.

3. Saha Varities,
Proprietor- Sri Animesh Saha,
Abhoynagar,
Agartala, West Tripura.    ..........Opposite parties.

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant         : Mr. P. Roy Barmam,
                  Mr. S. Bhattacharjee and
                  Mr. K. Nath,
                  Advocates.
                           
For the O.Ps NO.1 & 2    : None Appeared.

For the O.P. No.3        : O.P. No.3 in Person.
                

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : - 12.08.15

J U D G M E N T     

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Gitesh Ranjan Kar of Abhoynagar, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.Ps, namely I/C Bharati Hexacom Ltd. and 2 others over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant got a mobile telephone connection No- 8732038195 from the O.P. Bharati Airtel Ltd. after paying Rs.98/- and submission of all relevant documents as required. The O.P. No.3, Saha Varieties, the local agent of the O.P. Bharati Airtel  Ltd. issued sim card of the aforesaid mobile connection to the complainant and told that the validity of the same would be one month with internet facility. After that the above said mobile connection was activated. But after 8/10 days the said mobile phone connection was deactivated. The complainant brought the matter to the notice of the local agent verbally followed by written representations dated 10.11.12 and 15.01.13. But the O.Ps did not respond to his letters. The complainant by a letter dated 10.12.12 requested the O.Ps for cancellation of the registration of the mobile phone connection but it yielded no results. Finding no other alternative, the complainant served an advocate's notice dated 09.07.13 upon the O.Ps No.1 and 2 claiming compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the said O.Ps. Hence, this complaint.

3.        On admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the O.Ps, namely Bharati Hexacom Ltd. and Bharati Airtel Ltd., but they did not appear to contest the case. Hence, this Forum by an order dated 22.10.14 proceed to hear the case exparte against them. 

4.        During pendency of the proceeding, on the prayer of the complainant, the O.P. No.3, Saha Varieties, the local agent of the Bharati Airtel Ltd. has been impleaded as a party. 

5.        The O.P. No.3 contested the case by filing written objection admitting most of the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint. Further that, he being a local agent had no role to play in the matter of deactivation of the mobile phone connection of the complainant. He denied that he was deficient in rendering service to the complainant in any manner whatsoever.

6.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited 23 sheets of document filed by him on 01.08.14 as Exhibit -1 Series.

7.        No evidence either oral or documentary has been adduced by the O.P. No.3. 

        FINDINGS:
8.        The point that would arise for consideration in the present case is:
        (I) Whether the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
        
9.        We have already heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and the O.P. No.3 in person. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant meticulously.
10.        The complainant in his complaint as well as examination in chief by way of affidavit has pleaded that he got the mobile connection No- 8732038195 from the O.P., Bharati Airtel Ltd. on submission of necessary documents and paying Rs.98/- with internet facility for 30 days. Surprisingly, after 8/10 days the above said mobile connection was deactivated. He made several representations to the O.Ps but they did not respond to it. After serving legal notice upon the O.Ps No.1 and 2 he received a reply from them wherein it was stipulated that his mobile connection was deactivated due to improper submission of documents and for tampering with the documents so filed. The evidence adduced by the complainant has remained unrebutted and unshaken. The O.Ps No.1 and 2 have not led any evidence in rebuttal. Until contrary is proved ,we will have to rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant.

11.        On perusal of the letter dated 23.08.13 issued by the authorized signatory of Bharati Hexacom Ltd. it is found that the mobile connection of the complainant was deactivated due to insufficient documents. It is not understandable to us as to how the mobile connection of the complainant was initially activated in absence of sufficient documents. Even assuming that the documents filed by the complainant was insufficient to continue with the service his mobile connection,  in that event also the O.Ps No.1 and 2 could not have deactivated the mobile connection of the complainant without issuing any notice to him or without being heard. In our opinion, the conduct of the O.Ps attracts negligence and thus they are grossly deficient in service and is, therefore, liable to be burdened with costs.
12.        Since the O.P. No.3 was the local agent of the Bharati Hexacom Ltd. certainly he had no role to play in the matter of deactivation of the mobile connection of the complainant and hence he can not be fastened with any liability.
        
13.         In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed. The O.Ps No.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.7000/- (Rupees Seven thousand) to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment. This apart, they are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) to the complainant as cost of litigation. They will pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within 30(thirty) days of receipt of the copy of judgment, failing which the amount payable will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full. 

14.                  A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SMT. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.