BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.387/2012

21/2015

Date of Instt. 22.8.2012

23.01.2015

Date of Decision :14.08.2015

Paramjit Singh son of Dyal Singh Mall R/o VPO Mithapur, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. The Manager, Videocon Mobiles (Planet Connect), 188, Model Town, Opposite Nikku Park, Gurudwara Road, Jalandhar.

2. The Circle Head, Videocon Mobiles (Planet Connect), B-71, Phase-VII, Industrial Area, Mohali-160055.

3. Videocon Telecommunication Ltd, Fort, House, 2nd Floor, 221, Dr.DN Road Fort, Mumbai-400001.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: None for the complainant.

Sh.MS Sachdeva Adv., counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant has purchased a mobile post paid connection No.98770-16000 from Ping Company. After few months the Ping Company was closed. He paid all arrears and converted to Aircell, but Aircell could not provide good services to the complainant. The complainant transferd to Airtel post paid company. Airtel post paid could not provide good services to satisfy the complainant, then shifted this number 98770-16000 to prepaid connection in Videocon mobiles under TRAI's portability system. On 10.4.2012 Videocon mobiles company stopped mobile services without any reason. The complainant has sent a notice in this regard by speed post on 13.4.2012 but nobody met him personally in this regard for resolving the matter till date. The complainant is entitled to receive compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss caused by all the opposite parties. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for Rs.2 Lac as compensation. He has also claimed litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, it was fault of the complainant due to which the connection was withdrawn etc. They further pleaded that the Government of India has directed that the verification of every consumer/holder of mobile connection should be got conducted, their field inspection (FI) effected and to get the documents which are necessary so that there is no threat to the security of nation. This was done after attack by some terrorists on the parliament of our country. It is duty of the consumer to get his verification conducted within 72 hours of the activation of connection and once FI is not effected then it is duty incumbent upon the services provider that they would disconnect the telephone connection. In the present case, the complainant never got his Field Inspection (FI) effected and rather he tried to get the connection on the basis of wrong address and due to that reason the services were withdrawn. He has never got his FI effected till date and without getting the particulars verified, no connection can be released to him and due to this reason alone, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. Already the number 98770-16000 has been disconnected on 4.7.2013 as the complainant got the number ported out to some other network for which he is in the knowledge. The complainant is no more the consumer of the opposite parties. As once phone has been ported to new network then the control of the previous network ceases and his liability is discharged, so on this score alone this complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, it is correct that due to portability, telephone connection was shifted with M/s Videocon. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.1 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/11 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW/A alongwith copy of document Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/6 and closed evidence.

6. This complaint was originally dismissed vide order dated 22.8.2012. However, the complainant preferred appeal and the matter was remanded back to this Forum by Hon'ble State Commission vide order dated 5.11.2014 for deciding the matter in accordance with the law.

7. On 6.8.2015, complainant did not appear. However, the parties were directed to file written arguments on 10.8.2015. On 10.8.2015 again none appeared on behalf of complainant and as such, the case was adjourned for today i.e 14.8.2015 for order with liberty to the parties to file written arguments before the date fixed but no written arguments were filed by any party before the date fixed. However, the case was at the stage of arguments, so it has to be decided on the basis of evidence already led by the parties.

8. We have carefully gone through the record and counsel for the opposite parties No.2 & 3 has addressed oral arguments.

9. Amended written reply has been filed by Gurinder Singh, Senior BRAC Executive, Quadrant Televentures Limited, Pragpur, District Jalandhar. Ex.OP/1 is Special Power of Attorney given by the company in his favour. The above said power of attorney has been executed by Yatinder Vir Singh, Director on behalf of the company. Ex.OP/6 is copy of resolution vide which Yatinder Vir Singh, Director of the company has been authorized to execute power of attorney. The grievance of the complainant is that on 10.4.2012 opposite party company stopped his mobile services without any reason. In the preliminary objection No.4 of the amended written reply, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have pleaded as under:-

"Government of India has directed that the verification of every consumer/holder of mobile connection should be got conducted, their field inspection (FI) effected and to give the documents which are necessary so that there is no threat to the security of nation. This was done after attack by some terrorists on the parliament of our country. It is duty of the consumer to get his verification conducted within 72 hours of the activation of connection and once FI is not effected then it is duty incumbent upon the services provider that they would disconnect the telephone connection. In the present case, the complainant never got his Field Inspection (FI) effected and rather he tried to get the connection on the basis of wrong address and due to that reason the services were withdrawn. He has never got his FI effected till date and without getting the particulars verified, no connection can be released to him and due to this reason alone, this complaint is liable to be dismissed".

10. So according to opposite parties No.2 & 3 the connection was disconnected or services were withdrawn as the complainant never got the field inspection effected. The opposite parties have not shown if before withdrawing the services or disconnecting the connection of the complainant, they served any notice on the complainant. Disconnecting telecom services or connection without giving any prior written notice to the consumer is in violation of the principles of natural justice for which the complainant is entitled to compensation. In preliminary objection No.5 of the written reply, the opposite parties No.2 & 3 have pleaded that No.98770-16000 has been disconnected on 4.7.2013 as the complainant got the number ported out to some other network for which he is in the knowledge. So in this view of the matter, no directions regarding restoration of the above said number are called for. The opposite parties have filed customer application form of some other person in respect of the number in question. The application is dated 26.2.2013 and is Ex.OP5. Moreover the number is ported out when it is in working condition. So, the version of the above said opposite parties that even till date, he i.e complainant has not got his field inspection conducted nor he has provided any document to the company and its officials and to prove his address and other things, can not be accepted. The opposite parties have not produced any notice which might have been served on the complainant before disconnecting his telecom services. As already observed above it constitute violation of principles of natural justice and further deficiency in service.

11. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- in lump sum to the complainant on account of compensation and litigation expenses. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

14.08.2015 Member President