State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Davinder Kaushal vs Hutchisson Essar on 3 October, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 206 of 2008
Date of institution: 04.03.2008
Date of decision : 03.10.2012
Davinder Kaushal son of Shri Amar Nath Kaushal resident of House No.A-
86, Guru Nanak Colony, Near Bus Stand, Sangrur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Hutchison Essar South Limited, Regd. Office C-48, Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase - II, New Delhi - 110020 through its M.D.
2. Hutchison Essar South Limited, Local Office, C-131, Industrial Area,
Phase - VII, Mohali - 110071 Punjab through its Sales Manager
Sanjay Bhavri.
3. Bansal Communications, Opposite D.C. Office, Sangrur through its
Proprietor Happy Bansal, authorised dealer of Hutchison Essar South
Limited.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 23.11.2007
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Sh.R.K.Dhiman, Advocate for Sh.T.K.Joshi, Advocate For respondents No.1 &2 : Sh.Pankaj Jain, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Sh.Sanjeev Walia, Advocate JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the District Forum) vide which the complaint was dismissed. First Appeal No.206 of 2008 2
2. The complainant was holding a prepaid Hutch connection since July, 2005. According to him, he lost his mobile phone regarding which he lodged a DDR with the police. He went to the OPs to obtain the duplicate SIM card where OP No.3 Bansal Communication suggested him to get it converted into a post-paid connection. He filled up the form, paid Rs.300/- as activation charges and Rs.250/- as security but the OPs did not issue him any receipt. They did not activate the mobile connection and rather returned the SIM card and the form without activation. When he contacted the customer care of OP respondents No.1 and 2, he was told that a pre-paid connection cannot be converted into a post- paid connection. The contention of the complainant is that due to non-activation of the SIM card, he was suffering harassment. He, therefore, filed the present complaint to direct the OPs to activate the mobile connection and to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses with interest @ 12% per annum.
3. OP-respondents No.1 and 2 contested the complaint alleging that the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same and the jurisdiction would lie only at Delhi. They admitted that the complainant was having a pre-paid telephone connection but it was denied if they ever agreed to convert into a post-paid connection. It was also denied if he paid Rs.550/- as activation charges and security. Their contention is that the pre- paid connection cannot be converted into post-paid connection and when this fact was told to the complainant, he flared up, created a scene and threatened to drag the OP to Court. It was denied if the First Appeal No.206 of 2008 3 complainant is suffering any harassment or is entitled to any compensation.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 23.11.2007 dismissed the complaint. The complainant has challenged the same through the present appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. This matter relates to the activation of SIM card which according to the complainant had not been activated by OP- respondents No.1 and 2. In such cases, the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction as was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case "General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan & Anr III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC)."
8. The contention of the complainant is that he paid Rs.300/- towards activation charges and Rs.250/- as security. The learned counsel referred to Ex.C3 in which this amount is mentioned to prove that the said amount was paid by him. Ex.C3 is actually an agreement form and the fact that it is with the complainant itself proves that no such agreement has come into force between the parties and the question of depositing any such amount does not arise. The complainant has not produced any receipt vide which the amount was deposited which also goes to prove that no such payment has been made by him. First Appeal No.206 of 2008 4
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the complainant was having a pre-paid connection which cannot be converted into a post-paid connection. The complainant, however, flared up when this fact was told to him. He created a scene and threatened to drag them into Court. The complainant has not produced any such terms and conditions under which a pre-paid connection issued by OP-respondents No.1 and 2 could be converted into a post-paid connection. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the refusal by OP No.1 and 2 was justified and we cannot force them to convert his pre-paid connection into a post-paid connection contrary to their rules and regulations and the practice adopted by them.
10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint was rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER October 03, 2012.
Paritosh