Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. This Complaint is filed by the complainant namely Pooja Agrawal against the Ops alleging deficiency of service & unfair trade practice for unilaterally blocked of Airtel Mobile SIM vide No.9111288888 of the complainant.
2. The complainant has prayed for an order directing the opposite party to reconnect the Mobile vide SIM No. 9111288888 to the Complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment cost and Rs.30,000/-towards exemplary cost to set an example for the inaction of the O.Ps and to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost.
3.  Parties are remaining absent on call on the date fixed for hearing. However, in view of Section 38(3)(c)  of C.P.Act,2019 case record taken up today to decide on merit.
4. Perused the material available on record. Complainant has raised deficiency of service on the part of Ops for suddenly blocking of his SIM Card by the O.Ps without assigning  any reason on 11.07.2018 .It is alleged that, on being asked  the O.Ps have  replied through email  on 14.07.2018 that,  the O.Ps have received a complaint of unsolicited commercial communication form an anonymous person on “Promotional call for life insurance offer” and thereby decided to block the SIM number but these version of Ops   is denied by the complainant in his complaint petition alleging that, Airtel number 9111288888 is being uninterruptedly used complainant for  Charted Accountant Firm  and no such promotional call ever made by the complainant as alleged by the Ops. It is further contended that, she has not been given any opportunity of being heard for clarification before disconnection of said Airtel number. It is further contended that, the complainant has been paying required charges for using  of the said mobile number regularly which was  solely used for official purpose. Such un warranted action of  the O.Ps not only violate the regulation under Telecom Commercial Communication Customer Performance but also attract to unfair trade practice and deficiency in rendering fair services which caused financial loss & mental agony to the complainant..
5. On being notice, the Opp.Party appeared through their Ld. Advocate B.Panda but failed to filed their written version in time period as prescribed as such their written version has not been taken in to consideration in view of order dt. 04.03.2020 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vrs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd.
6.   As per Sec.38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record ; as such it casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider/seller, irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.
7. Here in this case ,the  complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence so to substantiate his claim. The photo copy of the documents placed on the record are neither signed by the complainant nor authenticated to be true for  acceptance as evidence. So also the complainant has failed to adduce any other evidence to hold  that, she has suffered any injuries solely for the deficiency in service as alleged against ops.
8. Law is well settled that, complainant is to prove deficiency in service as alleged against the Ops but here the complainant failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops.
9. Based on above discussion and settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that this complaint sans merits hence, dismissed against the Ops. However, no order as to cost.

  Dictated and corrected by me.

Sd/-

President

I   agree.

Sd/-

Member    

Pronounced in open Commission today on this   9^th February 2023under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly.

Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

            Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

Member.                                             President