BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Saturday, 17th May 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 88/ 2013
Jalla Venkata Reddy, S/o Narasimha Reddy,
aged about 27 years, Hindu, Private Employee,
Resident of D.No. 28/54-6-4, Rameswaram,
Proddatur town and Mandal, Kadapa District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Manager, Tata Docomo Office, Jammalamadugu Road,
Opp. Quality Sits and Bakery, Upstairs, Proddatur town and Mandal,
Kadapa District.
2. The Manager, Tata Docomo Customer Care, Tata Teleservices Ltd.,
Jeevan Bharathi, Tower 1, 10th floor, 124 Connaught Circus,
New Delhi – 110 001. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 12-5-2014 and perusing complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri V. Umamaheswar, Advocate for complainant and Sri K.B. Venkata Sivaiah, Advocate for O.P.1 & O.P.2 and the matter is having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri M.V.R. Sharma, Member),
1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction from the Opposite parties:-
(a) to provide call list with regard to SIM No. 9030779458 from 19-7-2012 to 2-8-2012 to enable the complainant to trace out his SIM card along with cell (IME No. 3566400B8085956),
(b) To pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards the expenses of this complaint and,
(c) To pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards deficiency of the service of the opposite parties
(d) To pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complaint is that, the complainant purchased TATA Docomo SIM Card No. 9030779458 in the month of August 2009 with the mobile IME No. 3566400B8085956 the complainant lost his phone on 19-7-2012 at Proddatur while going on his personal work. The complainant gave complaint to proddatur I town police station regarding lost of the cell phone along with SIM Card.
3. It is further stated that even after lost of the SIM card along with cell phone some unknown persons are using the SIM card of the complainant nearly upto one month. The complainant orally represented to the Manager of the TATA Docomo Proddatur for call list of his SIM card from 18-7-2012 to 26-11-2012 to trace out the number by whom his cell phone along with SIM card are using. But the O.P.1 did not responded after that the complainant sent a letter through registered post to the O.P.1 for asking call list. But the O.P.1 gave evasive replies.
4. The complainant also further stated that the complainant has to take call list from police department, then the complainant made a representation to the police department i.e. Addl. Superintendent of Police (Admn.) YSR District Kadapa. On 29-8-2012 to provide call list from 19-7-2012 to 2-8-2012 to trace out the SIM card along with cell phone. But till to day there is no hope that the complainant may get call list from O.P.1 and also stated that it is necessary to the complainant to trace the SIM card and cell phone of the complainant which kept valuable information stored in memory card. Hence, this complaint.
5. The O.P.2 filed counter and the same is adopted by O.P.1 and stating that M/s Tata Teleservices Ltd., is a company in incorporated under the companies act, 1956 having their registered office at Jeevabharathi, 10th floor, 124 Connaught circus, New Delhi – 01, and Andhra Pradesh Circle office at KLK Estate, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad – 01 and the said company is licensed by the Government of India through Department of Telecommunication (DOT) to establish maintain and operate basic telephone services and other value added services in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
6. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant has approached the O.P1 for obtaining connection and the O.P.1 has activated the phone connection and complainant using the telephone without any complaint from the date of its activation.
7. The Opposite parties further stated that the complainant is alleging that he lost his mobile number and some unknown person are using his mobile number. Therefore, seeks call details for the said period from 19-7-2012 to 2-8-2012. The opposite party states that the complainant on loss of his mobile number need to have called the customer care number of the opposite party 121 and asked for blockage of the SIM card and the O.P. also stated as on date no such complaint has been raised by the complainant and hence the same was not provided and the Opposite party no complaint has been received from the complainant and this claim of calls details is also not genuine. It is also stated that if any customer wants call details on payment of required fees he needs to submit a request basing on the same call details will be provided the request is within one year. The opposite parties further stated that the Department of Telephone service providers are not required to maintain call data details beyond one month and same will not be available in the system of Opposite parties and also stated that without properly understanding the rules and regulations the complainant has merely filed the case to harass the opposite parties and there is no consumer service provider relationship between complainant and the opposite parties there is no deficiency in service of the opposite parties and liable to dismiss the complaint.
8. To prove his case the complainant filed affidavit along with documents and got marked Ex. A1 to A6.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of their opposite party?
- To what relief?
10. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The contention of the complainant is that the complainant purchased TATA Docomo SIM card No. 9030779458 in the month of August 2009 with the mobile IME No. 3566400B8085956 and the complainant lost his phone on 19-7-2012 at Proddatur and the complainant gave the complaint to the police station and also contended that even after lost of his cell phone some unknown persons are using the SIM card of the complainant nearly up to one month. After that the complainant orally represented to the O.P.1 call list of a SIM card from 18-7-2012 to 26-11-2012 to trace out the numbers by whom his cell phone along with SIM card are using.
11. But the O.P. 1 not responded the complainant also sent a letter to the O.P. through registered post for call list and the O.P.1, gave evasive replies that the complainant has to take call list from Police Department the complainant make a representation to the Asst. Superintendent of Police (Admn.), Kadapa on 29-8-2012 to provide call list from 19-7-2012 to 2-8-2012 to trace out the SIM along with cell phone.
12. On the other hand the O.P.’s contended that the complainant is alleging that he lost his mobile number and some unknown persons are using his mobile number therefore, seeks call details for the period of i.e. 18-7-2012 to 26-11-2012 and the O.P. advised to the complainant on loss of his mobile number need to have call the customer care number of the O.P. 121 and asked for blockage of the SIM card and also contended that if any customer wants call details on payment of required fees. He needs to submit he request basing on the same call details will be provided the request is within one year.
13. As per the contention of the complainant he was lost his cell phone on 19-7-2012 and he gave police complaint on 20-7-2012 and also taken certificate from I town police station regarding call list of his cell phone.
14. As seen from the Ex. A2 i.e. certificate issued the Station House Officer, Proddatur I town police station mentioned in the certificate “in this regard all efforts have been made to trace out the same but in vain and there is no chance to trace out the same in near future”. Ex. A3 is the representation of the complaint to the O.P. 1 to issue call list his SIM card.
15. As per the contention of O.P.’s if any customer want’s call details on payment of required fees. He needs to submit a request basing on the same call details will be provided is within one year. In this regard the complainant did not filed any documentary evidence to prove that he paid fee amount for call details. As per the above discussion the complainant did not proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
16. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 17th May 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant
Ex. A1 P/c of SIM providing bill with SIM and Sl. Numbers.
Ex. A2 Police certificate issued by Inspector of Police, proddatur.
Ex. A3 Request letter to R1 with postal receipt and ack. Card.
Ex. A4 Representation to the Additional S.P. dt. 6-8-2012 for asking call list with endorsement.
Ex. A5 P/c of Ration card and Election card of the complainant.
Ex. A6 P/c of complaint, dt. 29-8-2012 to Additional S.P. Proddatur by the complainant.
Exhibits marked for Opposite parties NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to
- Sri V. Umamaheswar, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri K.B. Venkata Sivaiah, Advocate for O.P.1 & 2.
B.V.P.
