BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:141 of 2018.
Date of Instt.: 09.05.2018.
Date of Decision: 14.03.2019.
Vinod Kumar son of Atma Ram son of Ram Partap, resident of near Ramdev Mandir, VPO Nadhauri, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus
1. Shri Vinod Kumar son of Shri Atma Ram son of Shri Gangagal Dharnia, resident of near Stadium, VPO Nadhauri, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
2. Shri Avtar Singh, Proprietor of M/s Idea Communication, Bighar Chowk, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
…Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Present: Sh. Vikas Karwasra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Amit Soni, Advocate for the OP no. 1.
Sh. N.S. Malik, Advocate for the OP no. 2.
ORDER:
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) with the averments that the complainant is having SIMs of mobile bearing numbers 80591-63299, 97283-07134, 90531-94257, 86848-07964 issued by company of OP no. 2. It is further submitted that the above-said numbers have been got disconnected by OP no. 1 intentionally without his permission and by a conspiracy. It is also submitted that the OP no. 2 disconnected all the abovesaid mobile numbers on 12.3.2018 without giving any information to the complainant. It is further submitted that on account of disconnection of the abovesaid mobile numbers the complainant has suffered harassment as the complainant is a businessman and was using the abovesaid mobiles for business purposes. Therefore, the complainant has also suffered loss in his business. It is further submitted that despite many requests made by the complainant the OP no. 2 did not reconnect the abovesaid mobile numbers and has finally declined to the request of the complainant. It is further submitted that the OP no. 2 willfully disconnected the abovesaid mobile numbers at the instance of OP no. 1. The complainant also served a legal notice to the OPs but no satisfactory reply has been submitted by the OPs.
2. It is further submitted that the above-said act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and as such he is entitled for compensation. The complainant has further prayed that the OPs may be directed for making a payment of Rs.20,000/- as compensation, Rs.50,000/- on account of financial loss suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.
3. On being served, the OP no. 1 appeared through its counsel and filed a written version submitting therein that the allegations levelled against him by the complainant are incorrect and the same are denied. It is further submitted that the mobile numbers in question were got issued by the complainant wrongfully and illegally by using the ID of the OP no. 1. It is further submitted that when the OP no. 1 approached to OP no. 2 for getting issued a mobile number in his name then OP no. 2 disclosed that 4 sims have already been issued in his name. Upon this, the OP no. 1 intimated to OP no. 2 that he never got issued the abovesaid sims in his name. Thereafter, it came into the notice of the OP no. 1 that the complainant by mis-using his ID got issued the abovesaid sims in his name. It is further submitted that to avoid further misuse of the abovesaid mobile numbers the OP no. 1 got the said mobile numbers disconnected. It is also submitted that the OP no. 1 had also requested to the complainant to get the abovesaid numbers disconnected but all in vain. The OP no. 1 has further prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed being devoid of merits.
4. The OP no. 2 also appeared through its counsel and submitted written reply wherein various preliminary objections with regard to cause of action, maintainability, no deficiency on the part of OP no. 2, complaint is false and frivolous etc. have been raised.
5. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the abovesaid mobile numbers were disconnected upon the request of OP no. 1 as a written request of disconnection was submitted along-with copy of aadhar-card. It is further submitted that the OP no. 2 raised the service request based upon the request of OP no. 1and after verifying the details such as his name, father name and address. It is also submitted that in the present case there is a co-incidence that most of the details of OP no. 1 and the complainant matched to the extent of name, father name and even the address. Therefore, there was no reason of doubt on the request raised by OP no. 1 and accordingly the OP no. 2 raised the request for disconnection and the numbers were got disconnected on 19.3.2018.
6. It is further submitted that thereafter the complainant approached to OP no. 2 for activation of the above-said numbers. Therefore, the OP no. 2 requested the complainant to submit the documents as per the guidelines issued by the Department of Telecommunications to the complainant remained adamant to submit the documents as per the guidelines. Hence the mobile numbers could not be activated again. It is also submitted that the OP no. 2 has requested company to reserve the said numbers in the name of the complainant and the same has been reserved in the name of the complainant. The numbers of the complainant can be activated if the complainant submits all the required documents as per the guidelines. It is further submitted that there is no component of cheating, negligence or deficiency on the part of OP no. 2 in rendering service to the complainant and as such the OP no. 2 is not liable for any economic loss, mental agony and harassment to the complainant. It is further prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit CW1/A along-with documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4. The OP no. 1 tendered in evidence his affidavit as Annexure RW1/A along-with the document as Annexure R-1. The OP no. 2 tendered in evidence his affidavit as Annexure R1/A and closed its evidence.
8. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. It is the case of the complainant that SIMs of the mobile numbers in question were issued to the complainant by the company of OP no. 2. However, all the above-said mobile numbers were disconnected on 12.3.2018 by OP no. 2 at the instance of OP no. 1 without any intimation and permission of the complainant. It is further the case of the complainant that on account of disconnection of the above-said mobile numbers the complainant has suffered harassment and financial loss in his business. It is further the case of the complainant that despite many requests made by the complainant the OP no. 1 did not activate the above-said mobile numbers and finally declined the request of the complainant. The above-said act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency and as such the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.50,000/- as financial loss in the business and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.
9. On the other hand, it is the case of the OP no. 1 that all the mobiles numbers in question were got issued by the complainant wrongfully by using the ID of the OP no. 1. Therefore, to avoid further mis-use of the above-said mobile numbers the OP no. 1 submitted a request to OP no. 2 for disconnection of the abovesaid mobile numbers. It is the case of the OP no. 2 that the mobile numbers in question were disconnected by OP no. 2 on the request of the OP no. 1 and aadhar card was also furnished by OP no. 1 along-with the request. It is further the case of the OP no. 2 that coincidently the name, father name and name of the village of the complainant and OP no. 1 are same. Therefore, there was no reason of doubt on the request raised by OP no. 1 and accordingly the OP no. 2 disconnected the mobile numbers in question on 19.3.2018. It is further the case of the OP no. 2 that the complainant was asked to submit the documents as per the guidelines issued by the Department of Telecommunications, so that the numbers can be re-activated. However, the complainant did not submit the requisite documents. It is also the case of the OP no. 2 that it has requested the company to reserve the mobile numbers in question in the name of the complainant and the company has reserved the same in the name of the complainant. In case the requisite documents are submitted by the complainant the mobile numbers in question will be re-activated in the name of the complainant. It is further the case of the OP no. 2 that there is no malafide or ill-will or negligence on the part of OP no. 2 in disconnecting the mobile numbers in question.
10. We have examined the documents placed on record and pleading of both the parties. It is not disputed that name, father name and name of the village of the complainant and OP no.1 are same. It is also not disputed that the mobile no s in question were issued in the name of Vinod kumar s/o Atma Ram r/o vill. Nadhori. It is the comtention of complainant . that he is owner of the said mobile number. However the op 1 in his written statement has controverted the abovesaid contention and has alleged that the mobile numbers in question were got issued by the complainant illegally by using the ID of Op No.1. Therefore to prove its case the onus was upon the complainant to prove that the mobile numbers in question were got issued by him by submitting his ID/documents. However the complainant has not produced any evidence or document to prove that the said mobile numbers were got issued by him by furnishing his ID.
11. The other issue involved in the present case is as to whether there was any deficiency on the part of Op No.2 in disconnecting the mobile numbers in question. As discussed above, the mobile numbers in question were issued in the name of Vinod Kumar son of Atma Ram R/o Village Nadhori and it is also not disputed that name, father name and name of the village of the complainant and Op No.1 are same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in case if any error has been committed by Op No.2 in disconnecting the mobile numbers in that eventuality that has been committed on account of similarity in the name, father name and name of village of complainant and Op No.1. There seems to be no mischief, ill-will or fraudulent act or any controvercy on the part of Op No.2. Moreover, in the written statement, the Op No.2 has specifically submitted that the complainant was requested to submit the relevant documents and the mobiles numbers will be re-activated, but the complainant did not submit any document. However regarding the above averments of Op No.2, the complainant did not give any reply in his affidavit. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant in his complaint hasa inter-alia submitted that he requested the O(p No.2 for re-activating the said mobile numbers but all in vain. However4 in the prayer clause of the complainant the complainant hqas not sought direction from this Forum to direct Op No.2 to reactivate the said mobile number. The complainant has only prayed for compensation.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of OP no. 2 in rendering service to the complainant. The present complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Dated:14.03.2019
(Raghbir Singh) President
(Jasvinder Singh) Member
