Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Regional Officer, Bharti Cellular Ltd. vs Sh. Sandeep Kumar Gupta on 21 July, 2009

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
                         DEHRA DUN

                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 146 / 2006

Regional Officer, Bharti Cellular Ltd.
(Now Bharti Airtel Limited)
Airtel, 1st Floor, Shree Mata Jee Tower
Phase-2, 93 Rajpur Road
Dehradun
                                           ......Appellant / Opposite Party
                                  Versus

Sh. Sandeep Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta
R/o Shree Adhi Badrinath Mandir
Tapovan, Tehri Garhwal
                                        .....Respondent / Complainant

Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Learned Counsel for Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
       C.C. Pant,                      Member
       Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma,         Member

Dated: 21.07.2009

                                 ORDER

(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President):

Appellant was the opposite party in consumer complaint No. 03 / 2005 decided by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in favour of the complainant Sh. Sandeep Kumar Gupta vide order dated 13.06.2006, whereby the appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within 30 days, failing which the amount was directed to carry simple interest @5% p.a. The compensation was awarded on account of deficiency in service made by the appellant by abruptly disconnecting on 07.12.2004 the prepaid mobile connection No. 9897285972 having sim card No. 89919702070001132736. The District Forum rejected the appellant's contention that no mobile connection was issued to the complainant and that the complaint was filed with false and frivolous allegations.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered their submissions in the light of the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of the case. We may state at the outset that this appeal has force and is fit to be allowed.

3. The reasons are that Airtel Prepaid Enrolment Form (Paper No. 20) reveal that the above mobile connection number was issued to Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and not to the complainant named as Sh. Sandeep Kumar Gupta and, therefore, the appellant rightly urged that no mobile number was ever allotted in the name of the complainant and the complaint was filed with false and frivolous allegations.

4. It is also of significance that certificate to that effect (Paper No. 23) was also given by Kandwal Telecom, Tapovan, Laxman Jhula, District Tehri Garhwal, which had issued the said Airtel prepaid connection to Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and not to the complainant and in the face of such evidence, the District Forum was not at all justified in accepting that the complainant was authorised to file the consumer complaint in his capacity as a consumer of the appellant.

5. Further, the District Forum failed to take into account the fact that prepaid connection would automatically stand exhausted / disconnected after either the time period or after talk value balance becomes nil. At any rate, the complainant was not entitled to any relief on account of not having any mobile connection in his name and, as such, the order impugned suffer from factual and legal infirmity and is liable to be set aside.

6. Appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Order impugned dated 13.06.2006 of the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 03 / 2005 is dismissed.

(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K