DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.448 of 27-09-2010 Decided on 14-01-2011
Rashpinder Singh S/o Balkar Singh, resident of V.P.O.Daula, Tehsil Gidderbaha, Distt. Muktsar. .......Complainant
Versus
The Store Manager, Vodafone Store, Opposite Axis Bank, The Mall, Bathinda. Vodaphone Essar Sought Ltd., C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Mohit Singla, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Lachhman Kumar, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant has approached this Forum with allegations against the opposite parties that in the month of June, 2010, the opposite parties disconnected the mobile connection No.99885-00014 of the complainant and the complainant was asked to give address of his native place and the complainant got transferred the said connection in the name of one Davinder Singh S/o Labh Singh, Shop No.75 A, New Grain Market, Malout. The complainant has paid Rs.250/- as transfer fee and Rs.250/- as Sim fee to the opposite party No.1 and the opposite parties transferred the said connection in the name of said Davinder Singh. Since the date of transfer, the complainant has been using the connection and paying the bills regularly. About 15 days back prior to issuing the legal notice, the opposite parties again disconnected the said mobile connection without any sufficient cause or reason and without giving any information to the complainant. Due to act of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered loss in his business as his business entirely depends upon the mobile phone. The complainant has also issued a legal notice dated 06.08.2010 to the opposite parties which was duly received by the opposite parties. 2. The opposite parties have filed their written statement and have taken legal objections that as per the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that when there is a special remedy provided in Sec.7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is barred. The complainant is living in Delhi and working there in a private firm and as such, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complainant's connection was disconnected due to illegitimacy of the proofs provided by the complainant with the opposite parties. The customer services were disconnected as the documents were not as per VTM guidelines. The complainant failed to provide the requisite proofs to the opposite parties, he cannot claim any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have admitted the fact that the complainant had given written request on 14.07.2010 for getting his number transferred from corporate to individual at Bathinda Store in the name of Davinder Singh S/o Labh Singh, Shop No.75 A, New Grain Market, Malout but the address given by the complainant was not traced by the verification executive. The verification was found negative. Thus, the number was not transferred in the name of Davinder Singh. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The complainant has submitted that his mobile connection No.99885-00014 was disconnected in the month of June, 2010 and was asked to furnish the proof of the address of his native place by the opposite parties. The complainant got transferred the said connection in the name of Davinder Singh S/o Labh Singh, Shop No.75 A, New Grain Market, Malout and for this, the complainant had paid Rs.250/- as transfer fee and Rs.250/- as Sim fee to the opposite party No.1 and the opposite parties transferred the said connection in the name of said Davinder Singh. Since the date of transfer, the complainant has been using and paying the bills regularly. The opposite parties disconnected the said connection without any sufficient cause/reason. 6. The opposite parties have submitted that this complaint is liable to be dismissed in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and Ors. The complainant has been living in Delhi and working there in a private firm and as such, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complainant's connection was disconnected due to the lack of proofs provided by the complainant with the opposite parties. The customer services were disconnected as the documents were not as per VTM guidelines. The complainant had given request to the opposite parties on 14.07.2010 for getting his number transferred from corporate to individual at Bathinda Store in the name of Davinder Singh on the above mentioned address but the address given by the complainant was not traced by the verification executive. In this case, the verification was found negative and as such, the number was not transferred in the name of one Davinder Singh. 7. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the complainant-Rashpinder Singh is resident of Tehsil Gidderbaha, Distt. Muktsar and further perusal of bills placed by him shows that he has given address on these bills as Company Rashpinder Singh, Rice & General Mills, Shatabdi Rice & General Mills, House No.593, Sector-10, Chandigarh. This shows that the bills have been issued to the complainant on his Chandigarh address. As per Ex.R-1 i.e. affidavit of Ashutosh Kalia, Manager Legal, Vodafone Essar South, Ltd., C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali, who has deposed in his affidavit in para No.3 that the complainant had given request on 14.07.2010 for getting his number transferred from Corporate to Individual at Bathinda Store in the name of Dupinder Pal Singh S/o Sh.Labh Singh, Shop No.75A, New Grain Market, Malout. The billing address provided was of the shop Shatabdi Rice General Mills at Malout. Sh. Dupinder Pal Singh's father Labh Singh is the proprietor of this shop. During verification, it has been found that they had already used 57 Vodafone numbers under Shatabdi Rice General Mill corporate and Rs.13,000/- is still due from them. Therefore, this number is not transferred in the name of Dupinder Pal Singh. The particular shop whose address is given as billing address has been found to be defaulter. Hence, the number was not transferred. 8. The complainant has alleged that his connection was being transferred in the name of Davinder Pal Singh and he has been using the said connection since then and paying the bills regularly. No such bill or evidence has been produced on the file by the complainant to prove his version. However, the bills produced by the complainant in his evidence are in his name only. The complainant-Rashpinder Singh has given the name of Davinder Pal Singh for transfer his connection. Moreover, on verification, as per Ex.R-3, it has been found that 57 Vodafone numbers are running under Shatabdi Rice General Mill corporate and Rs.13,000/- is still pending against the owner of the Shatabdi Rice General Mill. In such circumstances, the number was not transferred as the same was verified negative. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As per the version of the opposite parties, the complainant has been residing at Delhi and address on the bills is of Chandigarh where as on the complaint, the address of the complainant has been mentioned of Muktsar and he has filed the present complaint at Bathinda. Hence, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed on merit as well as for the want of proper territorial jurisdiction. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 14.01.2011 President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
