Delhi

North East

CC/399/2015

Dilshad Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Airtel Co. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 399/15

                                   

In the matter of:

 

	Mr. Dilshad Ali R/o B-38, 3rd Floor, Dilshad Colony, Delhi-110095.	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	The Manager Airtel Company/ Ammrit Aircom E-23, Shop No. 5,6,7 Dilshad Colony, Delhi-110095.   Airtel Centre Plot No.16, Udhyog Vihar Phase-4, Gurgaon-122015.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

12.10.2015 10.01.2019 10.01.2019

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Succinctly put, facts of the present case as made out by the complainant in his complaint before us are that he was using a prepaid SIM of OP on his mobile of make Micromax and the mobile number was 9910343645. However, on 23.06.2015 there was a theft at the residence of the complainant in which apart from other house hold articles the said mobile was also stolen regarding which the complainant had lodged an FIR bearing no. 907/2015 u/s 380 IPC with PS Seemapuri, Delhi. The complainant informed OP1, Manager of OP2 company vide letter dated 11.07.2015 of the said theft and asked for activation of the SIM card in response to which, the OP2 company issued a new SIM of the same number to the complainant with the assurance that the same shall be activated within next 72 hours. However, the OPs did not activate the said SIM within the stipulated period for which the complainant again approached OP2 and was assured activation within next 1 hour. However the OPs failed to activate the said SIM and therefore the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum praying for issuance of directions to the OPs  to activate the prepaid SIM for the mobile number 9910343645 and also compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1 Lac for mental and physical harassment and loss of business of property dealing.

Complainant has attached copy of FIR dated 23.06.2015 and copy of letter / notice dated 11.07.2015 by complainant to OPs for activation of SIM alongwith postal receipts.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 09.11.2015. OPs entered appearance on 11.12.2015 and filed their memo of appearance and vakalatnama on the next date and offered settlement of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant recorded in order sheet dated 25.04.2016 which was rejected by the complainant but did not filed written statement despite several opportunities and therefore the defence was struck off vide order dated 11.05.2016 and subsequently OPs stop appearing and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments on 06.06.2016 and 26.10.2016 in reiteration of his grievance against the OPs.
4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have carefully perused the documentary evidence placed on record.

After appreciation of the facts of the present case, the issue which has to be decided is whether the dispute raised by the complainant in the present complaint falls within the ambit of the dispute referred to in Section 7-B of Telegraph Act. On bare reading of the complaint, it is clear that the dispute raised by the complainant is not a dispute concerning telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arising between telegraph authority and person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is provided which otherwise has to be determined by arbitration which shall be referred to an arbitrator applied by Central Government. The present complaint is purely and simply a grievance of deficiency of service on the part of OPs in their failure / inability to activate the prepaid SIM of the complainant. Therefore neither Section 7-B of Telegraph Act, 1885 nor the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in G M Telecom VsM Krishnan (2009) 8 SCC 481 are applicable in the present case.

The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment dated 26.04.2017 of Pramod Tyagi Vs Managing Director Bharti Airtel passed in Revision Petition No. 2975/15 held similar view in the case of failure on the part of service provider for mobile number portability activation that such a dispute was not covered under Section 7-B of telegraph Act and set aside the orders of the Hon’ble SCDRC Delhi and District Forum Delhi which had dismissed the complaint as not maintainable.

5. In view of the above discussion on the law in light of the facts of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to activate the prepaid SIM of the complainant for his mobile number 9910343645.

We also direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental and physical harassment. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.

6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on 10.01.2019 

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member