IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 12/S/2015. DATE OF FILING : 15.01.2015.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SRI SUBHABRATA CHAUDHURI,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBER : SRI TAPAN KUMAR BARMAN.
COMPLAINANT : SRI SUBHASH CH. ROY,
Siliguri Spl. Correctional Home (Jail),
Siliguri, Darjeeling.
O.Ps. 1. : THE MANAGER,
Bharti Airtel Ltd.,
Joymoni Bhawan (1st Floor),
Hill Cart Road, Siliguri,
Darjeeling.
2. : AIRTEL HEAD OFFICE,
Unitech World Cyber Park, Sector – 39, Tower-A,
4th Floor, Gurgaon – 122001, Haryana,
(Delhi & NCR), India.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Santanu Chakraborty, Advocate.
FOR THE OP Nos.1 & 2 : Sri Phalguni Chatterjee, Advocate.
F I N A L O R D E R/J U D G E M E N T
DATE : 29.06.2018.
The complainant’s case in brief is that OP No.1 is the office of Tele Communication Company of OP No.2. Complainant purchased a prepaid SIM card by surrendering a post paid SIM card through a person named Mrinal Pramanik from Venus More office of OP No.1 for which all the relevant documents were submitted to that Mrinal Pramanik. OP No.1 is an Authorised provider of Airtel SIM cards but complainant in order to get activation of the said prepaid SIM card harassed a lot. The Airtel connection Mobile Number was 9002058433 had been used by the complainant for a long time. Said Mrinal Pramanik assured the complainant that within a week by November, 2013 that prepaid SIM card will be activated and said person to that effect along with documents paid charges for which complainant paid Rs.300/- for security deposit and Rs.100/- for the new SIM card for activation. It became more than six months that the SIM card was still not activated for which complainant suffered communication trouble and had been facing problem in communicating with his loved ones as he is posted from his native home and all his relatives who were aware about his old phone number which is in question. Complainant is a bonafide consumer and as such he has been made a victim of unjust process and unwanted wastage of time just to activate his own prepaid SIM which should have activated within a week but OP No.1 failed to activate the same till date. Hence, this case with a prayer for passing an order for activation of the SIM card being Airtel connection Number 9002058433 and for an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and tension.
The OP No.1 filed written version on behalf of OP Nos.1 & 2 denying all the allegations as made against them by the complainant and submitted that complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum and the complaint itself is liable to be dismissed.
On 22.08.2016 complainant filed affidavit-in-chief and this affidavit-in-chief has been in corroboration with the case of the complainant on the other hand examination-in-chief has been filed by the OPs by one Dhruvanarayan Singh an employee of M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. designated as Manager, Legal and Regulatory and it is stated therein that complainant has been using the number 9002058433 since 19th September, 2009 as prepaid basis and subsequently he changed his plan from prepaid to postpaid on 07.09.2013. That on 05.09.2013 the complainant requested for change of his plan from prepaid to postpaid by filing consumer relationship form dated 05.09.2013 and on 07.09.2013 the connection was activated and he used this connection as post paid till February, 2014 and on 05.09.2013 he only requested to the OP Company to provide him the number on post paid basis and he never requested to the OP Company to provide him the number on prepaid basis on that time as alleged and claimed by the complainant. Complainant used this number till June, 2014 and after that connection number of the complainant was taken away by his office i.e., 420 FD HOSP for the reason best known to his office and the representative of the office namely Joy Sen again made an application before the OP for ten Airtel post paid bulk connections and the number in question 9002058433 was in the said list. Hence, if the complainant desired to transfer his connection from post paid to prepaid then the complainant should have to obtain No Objection Certificate from the competent authority of 420 FD HOSP and thus the complainant is not falling under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Both the parties filed written notes on argument and moreover arguments from both sides have been heard by this Forum.
Points for determination
1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and nature as per Provision of the C.P. Act, 1986?
2. Is there any deficiency of service against the complainant from the part of the OPs?
3. Is the complainant entitled to relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
All these three points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion and consideration as well as to avoid of repetition.
The OPs have produced some documents including the terms and conditions of the Bharti Airtel Company Ltd. It appears from page no.6 of those documents that ten Airtel post paid bulk connections from the part of the company were issued to 420 FD HOSP with reference to the name Joy Sen on 02.07.2014 where the mobile number in question in this case as demanded by the complainant has been there in Sl. No.3 as against SIM No.89915100020220977151 and prior to that one letter was sent from Joy Sen, Major 420 FD HOSP, C/O 99 APO to the OP No.1 Company with the subject of application for post paid connection. It further appears from page 1 that while the number had been in used to the complainant the entire bill amount of that post paid connection against service no.9002058433 was not paid in full by the complainant and that statement of account has been furnished by the OP No.1 Company. This statement of account says about invoice dates right from 24.09.2013 till 12.02.2014.
On perusal of all these documents on record we are of the considered view that the claim of the complainant is not only clear but it lacks bonafide also. The case while it was filed in the year 2015 then the complainant was not a consumer under OP No.1 Company as because on 2nd day of July, 2014 the complainant OP No.1 allotted ten numbers or connections to the 420 FD HOSP which includes complainant’s previous number which is in question in this case.
Under such facts and circumstances, considering all aspects we are of the view that complainant had ceased to be a consumer at the time actually on the date of filing of this case and accordingly, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
All these three points are thus disposed of.
In the result, the instant case fails.
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
that the instant Consumer Case No.12/S/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs but without cost.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to each of the parties free of cost at once.
