Date of Filing:09/06/2015
Date of Order:17/08/2016
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed in person U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred in short as O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and prays for direction to the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards inconvenience and harassment faced by him by the act of the O.Ps and also prays for interest for the above said sum at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of closure till date of realization, also claiming cost of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is a senior citizen and complainant is a consumer of Airtel mobile connection No.9880172310 since last 10 years and he was using the said mobile number for various purposes like several Banks for online transaction, Insurance companies, utility agencies, electricity suppliers etc. and also for personal purpose. On 20.1.2015 the complainant observed that the outgoing call facility was barred for the said mobile number and after checking up with Airtel customer care department, he was advised by the O.Ps. Therefore, the complainant approached the O.P and submitted relevant documents, thereafter the O.P advised the complainant to wait for 72 hours to get the outgoing call facility reactivated. However the facility was not activated even after 96 hours. Further the same number not getting even incoming calls and calls were not even going to the customer care department of O.P also. On 31.1.2015 the complainant daughter visited the above O.P outlet to check the status and they informed her documents submitted by the complainant were rejected and they have taken the liberty to allot the number to someone else. The O.P has never intimated the complainant that the documents were not OK or rejected. Thereafter, the complainant once again furnished the required documents and finally complainant got obtained the post paid mobile number consisting of the same SIM. The complainant alleges that, he resumed the service after the delay of 23 days and thereon complainant suffered inconveniences. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice, O.P No 1 appeared through their counsel and filed its version. Whereas O.P No 2 remained absent and hence placed ex-parte. In the version of O.P No 1 it is contended that, the complaint is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court decided in the Appeal No.7687/2004 dated 1.9.2009 on the subject matter between General Manager Telecom Vs N.Krishnan and another and relying on the said judgment O.P. prays for dismissal of the complaint at the threshold itself. Further O.P. denies all the allegations made in the complaint and suffering of the complainant by the act of the O.Ps. It is admitted that the complainant is the customer of the O.P since several time, but due to statutory provisions O.P sought for certain documents from the complainant but the complainant did not provide the required documents and thereon O.Ps barred the call but not intentional. The complainant has furnished the proper set of documents on 10.2.2015 as such upon following prescribed procedure the service was reactivated with the same mobile number. Hence contended that they acted as per the statutory obligations and there is no willful negligence or default on their part. On other grounds O.P prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. To substantiate the above case, both the parties have filed the affidavit evidence along with documents. We have heard the arguments.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try the complaint?
(D) What order?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) to (C) : In the Affirmative.
POINT (D): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No (A) to (C):-
7. On perusal of the rival pleadings of the parties, it is not in dispute that the complainant is the customer of the O.Ps since last 10 years and using the same SIM with the same number. The main allegation of the complainant is that, on 20.1.2015 the out going facility was barred and he was approached the O.P and the O.P sought for certain documents. Thereafter the complainant furnished the documents but the SIM is not activated and hence complainant alleged that he suffered lot of inconvenience and ultimately got post paid number for the same SIM and the same number was allotted after the delay of 23 days.
8. Per-contra, O.P No 1 contended that, as per the statutory provisions they asked the complainant to furnish required documents but the complainant did not furnish the same well in time and hence it is caused the delay but it is not willful negligence or default. Hence contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
9. It is worth to mention that, O.P admitted that, complainant is their customer since several years. It is note worthy to consider that, when the complainant applied for the first time, the O.Ps received all the required documents to allot the same and the address proof. Hence, there is no occasion warranted for the O.Ps to bar the outgoing calls and sought for the documents. The contention of the O.Ps requiring the documents from the complainant it is nothing but to shield their deficiency in service by raising the contention of requiring statutory documents without quoting any valid reasons. If any additional documents required after the lapse of several years, it can be intimated to the customers well in advance, whereas O.Ps did not place any documentary evidence regarding prior notice given to the complainant prior to barring the outgoing calls. Hence, the contention of the complainant is lame of strength and holds no water.
10. It is the specific contention of the O.Ps is that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try the matter in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court decided in the Appeal No.7687/2004 dated 1.9.2009 on the subject matter between GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM VS N.KRISHNAN AND ANOTHER. With due respect on going through the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court the facts involved in the above case is quite different from the facts involved in the present case on hand. Furthermore in view of the circular passed by the Ministry of Telecommunication Department, the grievance of the customers of the mobile phone services can be entertained by this Forum. More so, O.P being the service provider and complainant is the customer and the relationship between the parties is service provider and the customer and hence the matter comes under the ambit of service and the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the contention of the complainant questioning the jurisdiction of this Forum holds no water.
11. In the light of above discussion we reached to conclusion that, O.Ps without intimating the complainant barred the call and finally activated the SIM after the lapse of 23 days and it causes much inconveniences to the complainant. Hence the act of O.Ps is deficient in their service. In the circumstances, we deem it just and proper to direct the O.P No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards delayed service rendered by the O.Ps and sufferings of the complainant. Accordingly, we answered the point No.(A) to (C) in the affirmative.
POINT (D):
12. On the basis of the findings given above on the point No.(A) to (C) and in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is allowed-in-part with cost.
- The O.P No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation.
- Further O.P No.1 and 2 directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
- The O.Ps are hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 17th Day of August 2016)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*Rak
