Order dictated by:

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Ashish Arora   has brought the instant complaint under section 11/12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he obtained life time pre-paid mobile connection No. 99888-38366 from Opposite Party through its dealer on 18.11.2009 against consideration  and at the time of obtaining the aforesaid connection, the Opposite Party assured the complainant that said connection is a life time connection and to keep it active, the complainant needs to do mandatory recharge with Rs.200 cumulative in 180 days to avoid disconnection.  Since the obtaining of the aforesaid mobile connection, the complainant was regularly recharging  the same besides mandatory recharge before 180 days and also fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the company as required by them from time to time. The complainant lastly recharged the said connection with Rs.500/- on 7.3.2012 under the Transaction ID:MCIT2699028699 and was very well fulfilling the mandatory condition of Lifetime validity tariff plan before the said connection was deactivated by Opposite Party on 27.7.2012 and that too without any prior information to the complainant. The Opposite Party illegally and unlawfully and even without any intimation or prior to the notice to the complainant has disconnected/ discontinued the services of the aforesaid mobile connection on 27.7.2012 and forfeited the balance amount. Immediately, after disconnection of his aforesaid mobile connection, the complainant lodged complaint within 12 hours with Nodal Desk as well as Appellate Desk and also sent e-mail to the company making verbal requests and telephonic calls intimating them regarding illegal disconnection of his connection, without further request to restore his connection, but as such requests of the complainant has been treated by the Opposite Party in a very lax manner. The Opposite Party informed the complainant that this number was permanently deactivated as per the TRAI policy and when complainant requested the Opposite Party to share the TRAI policy, the Opposite Party refused to share the same. Due to the illegal disconnection of his mobile connection, the complainant is facing great hardship and inconvenience. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party may kindly be directed to restore the aforesaid mobile connection No.99888-38366 of the complainant by providing no usage policy applied on his number on 27.7.2012.

b)      The Opposite Party may kindly be directed to pay the compensation to the complainant as per law on account of mental pain, agony and harassment besides Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation. 

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, initially none appeared on behalf of  Opposite Party and Opposite Party was proceeded against exparte, but lateron Opposite Party filed revision against the order passed by this Forum before Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh and Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh allowed the revision petition of the Opposite Party to file the written reply. Hence, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party; that the present complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the ground  that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; that the present complaint made by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant is himself at fault as his pre paid connection was deactivated only for the non usage of the SIM. It is pertinent to mention over here that the mobile connection of the pre paid consumers shall not be deactivated for any period of non usage less than 90 days rather, the complainant admitted himself that he lastly recharged his mobile connection on 7.3.2012 and the SIM was deactivated on 27.7.2012. Further, It is pertinent to mention over here  that as per the TRAI rules, no service provider i.e. respondent shall deactivate the cellular mobile telephone connection of the pre paid consumers for non usage  if any amount exceeding Rs.20/- or such lesser amount, as may specified by the service provider, is available in the account of such consumer, then the service provider may deduct an amount not exceeding Rs.20/- as may be service specified by the service provider. But the complainant was  out of the balance for this purpose at the time of the deactivation of the mobile connection on 27.7.2012 i.e. after more than 90 days. It is also relevant to mention here that the said connection was again activated to the other consumer on 14.8.2012 after expiry of 15 days of grace period, in the name of Sachin Arora from Ludhiana. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant has not contacted to the Opposite Party even within the 15 days of grace period given after deactivation of the non usage for 90 days as per the guidelines of the TRAI and even the complainant has made the wrong statement that he contacted the Nodal desk, appellate desk etc. On merits, the Opposite Party took almost same and similar pleas as taken by them in the preliminary objections.           So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party.     Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2   to Ex.C21  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Ashutosh Kalia, DGM, Legal Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP3   and close the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and gone through the written synopsis filed by the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that  the complainant obtained life time pre-paid mobile connection No. 99888-38366 from Opposite Party through its dealer on 18.11.2009 against consideration  and at the time of obtaining the aforesaid connection, the Opposite Party assured the complainant that said connection is a life time connection and to keep it active, the complainant needs to do mandatory recharge with Rs.200 cumulative in 180 days to avoid disconnection.  Since the obtaining of the aforesaid mobile connection, the complainant was regularly recharging  the same besides mandatory recharge before 180 days and also fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the company as required by them from time to time. The complainant lastly recharged the said connection with Rs.500/- on 7.3.2012 under the Transaction ID:MCIT2699028699 and was very well fulfilling the mandatory condition of Lifetime validity tariff plan before the said connection was deactivated by Opposite Party on 27.7.2012 and that too without any prior information to the complainant. The Opposite Party illegally and unlawfully and even without any intimation or prior to the notice to the complainant has disconnected/ discontinued the services of the aforesaid mobile connection on 27.7.2012 and forfeited the balance amount. Immediately, after disconnection of his aforesaid mobile connection, the complainant lodged complaint within 12 hours with Nodal Desk as well as Appellate Desk and also sent e-mail to the company making verbal requests and telephonic calls intimating them regarding illegal disconnection of his connection, without further request to restore his connection, but as such requests of the complainant has been treated by the Opposite Party in a very lax manner. The Opposite Party informed the complainant that this number was permanently deactivated as per the TRAI policy and when complainant requested the Opposite Party to share the TRAI policy, the Opposite Party refused to share the same. Due to the illegal disconnection of his mobile connection, the complainant is facing great hardship and inconvenience. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties.

7.       Whereas the case of Opposite Party  is that  the present complaint made by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant is himself at fault as his pre paid connection was deactivated only for the non usage of the SIM. It is pertinent to mention over here that the mobile connection of the pre paid consumers shall not be deactivated for any period of non usage less than 90 days rather, the complainant admitted himself that he lastly recharged his mobile connection on 7.3.2012 and the SIM was deactivated on 27.7.2012. Further, It is pertinent to mention over here  that as per the TRAI rules, no service provider i.e. respondent shall deactivate the cellular mobile telephone connection of the pre paid consumers for non usage  if any amount exceeding Rs.20/- or such lesser amount, as may specified by the service provider, is available in the account of such consumer, then the service provider may deduct an amount not exceeding Rs.20/- as may be service specified by the service provider. But the complainant was  out of the balance for this purpose at the time of the deactivation of the mobile connection on 27.7.2012 i.e. after more than 90 days. It is also relevant to mention here that the said connection was again activated to the other consumer on 14.8.2012 after expiry of 15 days of grace period, in the name of Sachin Arora from Ludhiana. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant has not contacted to the Opposite Party even within the 15 days of grace period given after deactivation of the non usage for 90 days as per the guidelines of the TRAI and even the complainant has made the wrong statement that he contacted the Nodal desk, appellate desk etc.

8.       The perusal of notification of TRAI policy Ex. OP2 shows that the no service provider i.e. respondent shall deactivate the cellular mobile telephone connection of the pre paid consumers for non usage  if any amount exceeding Rs.20/- or such lesser amount, as may specified by the service provider, is available in the account of such consumer, then the service provider may deduct an amount not exceeding Rs.20/- as may be service specified by the service provider. But the complainant was  out of the balance for this purpose at the time of the deactivation of the mobile connection on 27.7.2012 i.e. after more than 90 days. Moreover, said connection was further provided to one Sachin Arora from Ludhiana.  Moreover, the complainant has not contacted to the Opposite Party even within the 15 days of grace period given after deactivation of the non usage for 90 days as per the guidelines of the TRAI. So, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

9.       Consequently, the instant complaint fails and the same is dismissed.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 31.03.2017.