O R D E R
SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:
The grievance of the complainant against the Op in brief is, that he is a bonafide customer of Op for the past two years has purchased a Spice Sim card with mobile set. The sim card has life time validity and required amount was paid to the Op. The sim card was activated during December 2008. He was regularly using the said sim card. Even then after lapse of several months the Op has suddenly deactivated the sim card without prior notice. That he had visited the Ops customer service care at Malleswaram and questioned them in having deactivated the sim card. At that time, the customer care service people told him to had given that sim card number and service to some other customer and refused to oblige to re-activate his sim card by assigning the same number. That he is an advocate by profession was using that sim card and has given that number to several of his clients and when that number was deactivated it had become difficult for him to carry out his profession. Therefore, has prayed for a direction to Op to pay him Rs.20,000/- as compensation and also to give the same number to him and to pass such order as this forum deems fit and stated that despite issue of notice to the Op in this regard Op did not restore connection.
2. Op has appeared through his advocate and filed version by contending that complaint is not maintainable, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 AIR SCW page 5631 between General Manager, Telecom V/s M.Krishnan and another. Op has admitted to had given sim card facility to complainants mobile phone having life time validity. It is further stated that mobile number series is a scarce resource provided by the department of telecommunication and need to be used judiciously by them. That they are entitled to re-allocate any mobile number to a given subscriber for various reasons. When a sub-scriber fails to re-charge the connection within 60 days, after the expiry of validity period or when he fails to recharge Rs.200/- cumulatively over a period of 6 consecutive months and when there is no usage of connection for a period of 60 days, connection can be deactivated. The Op further referring to conditions of the sim card particularly to conditions No.11 and 12(g) has contended that the complainant since did not use the sim card for more than two months and when he did not either use it or get the sim card recharged they after sending SMS to the complainant deactivated it. Therefore justifying their action has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Gurudatta for Op have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of rules and conditions of the mobile connection and a copy of legal notice he got issued to the Op. Op has produced a copy of conditions for using the sim card. The counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments. We have heard the counsel for the Op and perused the records.
4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.
- Whether the complainant proves that the Op has caused deficiency in his service in deactivating the sim facility provided to his mobile phone?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our findings are as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : See the final order
REASONS
6. Answer on point No.1: The learned counsel representing the Op, by referring to the defense taken by the Op and by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has to approach the arbitrator as provided U/S 7B of Telegraphic Act for remedy and therefore, submitted for dismissal of the complaint on that ground alone.
7. On perusal of the allegations of the complainant and admissions of Op it is pertinent to note that sim card facility given by the complainant for consideration for use the complainant came to be deactivated by the Op by even assigning that number to another customer. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above referred to certain disputes concerning to telegraphic line appliance or apparatus arising between the telegraph authority and the user has held that such dispute has to be resolved by an arbitrator and therefore, the complaint to the forum is held as not maintainable. But in the case on hand, according to the complainant, the Op who had given sim card facility for the use of his mobile phone has been deactivated and allotted to somebody, which in our view do not fall within the ambit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, Op is required to substantiate whether such an action has the support of law or rules. Therefore, jurisdiction of this forum is not ousted by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue.
8. Coming to the merits of the case, Op without disputing the other facts narrated by the complainant has justified their action of deactivating the sim facility given to the complainant on the ground of default of the complainant in not using the sim card facility for a long time. The Op has elaborated by contending that the complainant though had availed sim card, was not using it therefore stated to had sent SMS to the complainant in that regard. Then when they did not receive any response from the complainant they deactivated it. The counsel for the Op has produced a copy of certain condition of this pre-paid plan sim card condition which reads as under:
“New idea pre-paid subscribers with lifetime account validity or account will be deactivated if he/she is in ANY of the below mentioned categories.
1. If he/she fails to remain active on the network for 3 continuous month’s i.e he/she should either receive or make a call (excluding the first call for SIM activation) once in 3 months.
2. If he/she does not recharge with a minimum value of Rs.200/- once in every 6 months”.
9. Op has also produced copy of the statement of the call details of the complainant’s sim card and the counsel for the Op argued that from 01/09/2009 to 31/12/2009 the complainant did not make use of the sim card either by making call through it or has not received any call to that number and stated that for about 5 months continuously the complainant did not make use of that sim card and was almost in dead condition. The counsel for the Op argued that considering this non-user of the sim card, Op had even sent SMS informing the complainant about the course of action they take to deactivate the number. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the Op that each of this company will be given certain sim cards by the Government Telecommunication Department and these companies making use of sim cards they have to carry out the business and submitted if the customers like the complainant after taking sim card if they do not make use of the card in any way that would lead to loss to their company making it impossible to conduct the business. These facts as put forth by the Op are not at all denied by the complainant and his counsel in the course of arguments.
10. On seeing the details of call list of the complainant, it is noticed that the complainant for 5 months continuously did not make use of the sim card in any way either by receiving any call or by sending any call through it. Therefore, it looks that the complainant had kept this sim card for nothing and naturally the Op will be put to loss by providing such service to a sleeping customer. The sim card being a precious commodity with limitation cannot be kept idle by not using it for the purpose for which it is issued. The condition of the user of the sim card as relied upon by the Op and quoted above do empower the Op to deactivate the connection and to even assign that number to other consumer. The complainant has not denied in his affidavit evidence about SMS the Op sent and even after there also he did not make use of the card for quite long time. Therefore, we under these circumstances do not find the action of deactivation as deficient service. Even otherwise the Op in the version and also in the affidavit evidence stated to had offered to assign or provide another sim card with a different number if the complainant is interested in making use of it, but that offer was declined by the complainant. The refusal of the complainant to have another sim card is not find favour. The fact that the card was not made use of for 5 months falsify the contention of the complainant, that he as an advocate by profession relied upon that number and was very important to his profession had given to several clients and affected his profession and we find no truth in it. Therefore, we find no merit in the allegation of the complainant regarding deficiency in the service of the Op and hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and we pass the following order.
O R D E R
Complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 29th December 2010.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
