Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/31/2015

Sohar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Videocon Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Dhawal Bhandari

17 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/31/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	19/01/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	17/07/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Sohar Singh son of Janeshwar Dyal, resident of House No.80/9, Top Floor, Saini Vihar, Sector 5, Ph-4, Baltana, Dera Bassi, Mohali.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

(1)  Videocon Telecom, Quadrant Televentures Limited (formerly known as HFCL Infotel Limited), B-71, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali – 160055, through its authorized representative. 

 

(2)  Videocon Telecom, Quadrant Televentures Limited (formerly known as HFCL Infotel Limited), Autocars Compound, Adalat Road, Aurangabad, Bihar 431005, through its Authorized Representative.

 

(3)  Videocon Telecom, Chandigarh: SCO 417-418, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh – 160035, through its Authorized Representative.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MRS. SURJEET KAUR           PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	None
For OPs	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          The facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the present Complaint are conceptualized hereinafter. The Complainant who was having one postpaid mobile no. 9855312111 of Idea Cellur Network for the past 8-9 years, got the same ported to the network of Opposite Parties, after clearing all his dues of Idea Cellular Service, on 19.08.2014 and it worked very well till 22.11.2014. On 23.11.2014, the Opposite Parties barred the subjected mobile phone, due to the reason that his bill was due from Idea Cellular Service. The Complainant paid the amount of Rs.214/- to the Idea Network on 22.11.2014 vide Receipt No.163057, but the Opposite Parties refused to accept the said receipt and told the Complainant to repay the amount, which he had again paid on 24.11.2014. Despite the above payment, when the Opposite Parties did not activate the mobile number of the Complainant, he approached the Idea Cellur Network and was shocked to learn that it was not Idea Cellular Network, but the Opposite Parties themselves who for reasons best known to them were not activating his number 9855312111. Hence, the Complainant has preferred the present Consumer Complaint before this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties, in their written version have pleaded that the Complainant was having mobile number in question, but he has not proved that he had been utilizing the said telephone number for the last 8-9 years. It has been admitted that the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 for the portability of his mobile number and settled the terms & conditions of availing its services. The Complainant specifically agreed that the outstanding dues of the Donor Service provider would not be carried forward with the answering Opposite Parties and it was obligatory for the Complainant to clear all the outstanding whether billed or unbilled. However, the Complainant failed to clear the outstanding dues of M/s Idea Cellur Limited and ignored all the notices sent by the Opposite Parties in the shape of SMS (SMS Log Annexure R-1/2). The outgoing telephone services of the Complainant were barred w.e.f. 07.11.2014 except for the emergency services and since the Complainant failed to clear the dues of M/s Idea Cellular Limited within 15 days so the Opposite Parties were left with no other alternative, but to bar the incoming calls w.e.f. 22.11.2014 as stipulated in the Regulations. It has been submitted that the Complainant had concocted a false story in the Complaint with ulterior motive, as no intimation of making the payments vide receipts dated 22.11.2014 and 24.11.2014 were given to the answering Opposite Parties. Further, the Donor Service Provider (M/s Idea Cellur Ltd.) had also not intimated the answering Opposite Parties that its dues were finally paid by the Complainant. Also, no request was ever received from the side of the Complainant for the restoration of the services. As such, the answering Opposite Parties were unable to activate the services to the Complainant’s mobile phone. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

5.     We have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

 

6.     The main contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties have barred the outgoing calls of his Mobile No. 9855312111 with effect from 07.11.2014 and notice in the shape of SMS were sent to the Complainant on 07.11.2014, 12.11.2014, 15.11.2014, 17.11.2014 and on 22.11.2014 the incoming calls were also barred.

 

7.     The Opposite Parties have contended that they have barred the calls as the Complainant had failed to clear the outstanding bill of M/s Idea Cellular Network Ltd. i.e. of Donor Operator amounting to Rs.214/-.  However, we are not impressed with the same. To our mind, the barring of outgoing calls from 07.11.2014 by the Opposite Parties is not fair and justified, in as much as, the SMS has been sent to the Complainant only on 07.11.2014 and sometimes, it is not possible for an individual to see the SMS. All other correspondence i.e. filling of portability form, payment of charges, annexing of documents etc. available on file are written and hard copies as submitted by the Complainant. We are of the considered opinion that it should have been proper on the part of the Opposite Parties to serve a notice by Regd. A.D or Speed Post or by Courier to the Complainant, giving him reasonable time, before the barring the outgoing/ incoming calls of his subjected mobile number. In this case, it is surprising that on 07.11.2014 a SMS was sent to the Complainant and on the same day, the outgoing calls are barred, which tantamount to deficiency in service on their part, resulting in undue physical and mental harassment to the Complainant.  

 

8.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To activate the mobile number of the Complainant within seven days of receipt of copy of this order;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

9.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [b] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [a] above. 

 

10.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17^th July, 2015                                       

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

           Sd/-                 

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

“Dutt”                                                                                            MEMBER