Complainant Abhishek Verma has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to settle his claim. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation to him for causing mental tension, harassment and financial loss to him and any other relief which may deem fit be also granted, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased a VIP prepaid connection of SIM bearing connection No.8900000001 of BSNL Company from Kolkata, West Bengal and thereafter ported the said connection in the Vodafone Company bearing Sr.No.MNP8991671243345508523 and he was running the said connection for the last three years. In the present time the market value of the said connection is more than from Rs.5,00,000/-. Thereafter on 10.07.2015 he had departed to Dubai and on 22.07.2015 he had arrived to India. In the meantime, his abovesaid connection was remained switch off. On very next day he tried to open his said connection but the same was not valid, thereafter, he made contact with local Vodafone Store at Batala and also contacted with Vodafone office of West Bengal and also sent e-mails in this regard. Thereafter one person namely Joy Chakrborty had contacted with him from his mobile No.9800880990 who disclosed that someone had illegally replaced his duplicate SIM connection in his name vide dated 13.07.2015 and also ported the said connection in Airtel Company vide dated 21.07.2015. Later on the name of the abovesaid unknown person was disclosed as Bharat Kumar i.e. opposite party no.8. The abovesaid person had also disclosed that the opposite party no.8 had illegally replaced his duplicate SIM by showing his duplicate passport. The said Joy Chakrborty had also advised him to move before the Police regarding the same so that the opposite party would return the said SIM connection to him. Thereafter, in this regard he moved an application to the SHO PS City Batala on 27.07.2015 and also moved an application to the SSP, District Police, Batala on 31.07.2015 on the basis of which a deep and thorough investigation was conducted. During the course of investigation it came into light that on 12.07.2015 the opposite party no.6 had moved an application to the Manager Vodafone Store, Durgapur to replace the abovesaid duplicate SIM connection in the name of opposite party no.8 alongwith one duplicate passport by showing himself as representative of Abhishek Verma. He has next pleaded that the opposite party no.6 in connivance with the opposite party no.8 and also in connivance with opposite parties no.1 to 5 had not enquired about the duplicate documents submitted by the opposite party no.6 and issued the abovesaid SIM connection No.8900000001 in the name of opposite party no.8. He had purchased the said connection from West Bengal by giving his copy of passport as his ID proof and operated the said connection in Batala i.e. he operated the said connection in roaming because his said connection is vanity premium number and at present the market value of the sabovesaid connection is more than Rs.5,00,000/-. He had also moved an application against the abovementioned opposite parties to the Kolkata Police, but the police had not taken any action against the abovesaid all the opposite parties and in this regard he had visited at Kolkata many times. He approached the opposite parties time and again and requested them to settle his claim but they linger on the matter on one pretext or the other and finally flatly refused to settle his claim which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 to 4, 6 and 7 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has failed to disclose the cause of action regarding which the complaint is relating deficiency in service; no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; no cause of action has been arisen at the West Bengal; the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was submitted that during the application moved to the police station at Batala on 27.7.2015 and 31.07.2015 respectively, the mobile connection of the complainant was running at West Bengal and not in the territorial jurisdiction of the present Forum. Presently the Mobile Number in question is running into Airtel and not into the services of the opposite parties. The complainant has failed to implead the Airtel as opposite party in the complaint filed by him. The complainant has failed to raise any allegation against the opposite parties even as the allegation leveled in the complaint is not into the scope of the Hon’ble District Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. While denying and controverting other allegations leveled by the complainant, opposite parties have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Notices issued to the opposite parties no.5 and 8 had not been received back. Case called several times, but none had come present on their behalf, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.12.2016.
5. Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C32 and closed the evidence.
6. Counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 4,6 and 7 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Pushkal Chauhan Manager-Legal Ex.OP-1 to 4, 6 and 7/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1 to 4, 6 and 7/2 to Ex.OP-1 to 4,6 and 7/3 and closed the evidence.
7. We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings while adjudicating the present complaint. We observe that the complainant Abhishek Verma had purchased one VIP (Vanity) Fancy Mobile SIM Card from the BSNL (service providers) office at Kolkata bearing # 8900000001 and had been using the same for the previous ‘three’ years after having ported the same to the OP service providers (Vodafone) vide ID # MNP 899167 124334 5508523 in the year 2012. However, the duplicate mobile SIM was issued to some alleged fraudster by the OP service providers during the period the mobile was switched off while being away to Dubai for 12 days w e from 10.07.2015 onwards. Upon his return back to India, the complainant has been running from pillar to post for the last more than two years but till date has not been able to get back his fancy number or some other ‘VIP (Vanity)’ fancy equivalent and thus prompted the present complaint.
8. We find that such like fancy numbered SIM chip does cost substantial amount of money to its purchaser and the present complainant has alleged to have spent Rs 5 Lac upon getting the SIM in question. He has also received an e-mail correspondence in which such like vanity-premier eight-digit (00000001) ending mobile number has been quoted at Rs 8.30 Lac (approximately) as duly produced here along with his other documents exhibited as: Ex.C1 to Ex.C32 that includes amongst others, the police complaints to Batala (Punjab) and West Bengal Police for registering of suitable FIRs against the offenders. From all these exhibits and contents of the complaint we observe that the complainant has indeed suffered huge physical as well as mental harassment coupled with monetary loss etc at the hands of the opposite party Vodafone Co who had first issued duplicate SIM card to an imposter on the strength of false/ fabricated and duplicate ID proofs without following any process/ procedure etc and further ported the same to other service providers (Airtel Co) who presently refuse to cancel/return the so-ported vanity SIM and thus the OP Vodafone are also helpless under the circumstances and have been taking refuge to technical but irrelevant pleas during the proceedings that somehow render no assistance/help to them.
9. The OP Vodafone Co has produced in its support the lone affidavit Ex.OP1 deposing technical but evidentiary bald statements and a copy of the fabricated pass-port Ex.OP2 of the complainant. There has been no evidence of any prior ‘notice’ and/or pre ‘intimation’ to the complainant of the ‘issuance’ of duplicate SIM and/or means undertaken for verification of the put-up credentials by the alleged fraudster.
10. However, we are not here to adjudicate situational ‘truth’ in the allegations and the reactive-counters but we definitely find here the hue of negligence and deficiency in service on the OP Vodafone Co’s part during the delivery/ issuance of the duplicate SIM and that rakes them up to an unfavorable award under the applicable statute. In the light of the all above, we find that the present dead-end lock-up situation shall be somewhat moderated/ lessened by the monetary as well as emotional (situational) compensation to the tiresomely harassed complainant along with an exemplary cost in the form of statutory punitive damages so as to deter the service providers to execute such derogatory acts at the cost of innocent and defenselessly innocent consumer customers.
11. Thus, while partly accepting the present complaint we ORDER the titled opposite party Vodafone Co (service providers) to arrange the delivery of original mobile no 8900000001 to the complainant (and if it could not be arranged) issue another alike number with eight digit ending (00000001) besides to pay him Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation and also to deposit Rs.10,000/- as punitive damages in the forum’s legal-aid account within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment.
12. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
April 27, 2018. Member
*MK*
