BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHIMLA, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 85/2007
Date of presentation: 02.04.2007
Date of decision: 27/10/2009.
Mr. Narender Sharma S/o Sh. O.P. Sharma,
R/o Hilarious Lodge Sangti P.O. Chailly,
Summer Hill Shimla-5.
… Complainant.
Versus
1. BSNL through its GM Kasumpti Shimla-9.
2. Gupta Electrical (Mobile Division) through its sole proprietor, Sant Niwas Alley No. 11 Middle Bazaar Shimla-1.
3. Bhagwati Photostat PC Chamber Near Jodha Niwas Shimla-171001.
… Opposite Parties.
For the complainant: Mr. J.L. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No. 1: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Om Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No. 3: Exparte.
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This instant complaint, has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that the OP No.2, is the distributor for Shimla District of OP No.1, while OP No.3, is, agent of the OP No.2, for promoting the business of selling more and more BSNL connections. He avers that he has been allotted Mobile phone connection bearing No. 94184-00861, by the OP No.2, on, 08.11.2006, which was made functional on, 07.11.2006, but, was not made functional for GPRS. The validity of the coupon was upto 7th December and the extended time was to expire on 22.12.2006. He further avers that the OP No.1 launched a scheme in the month of December by giving an assurance that the card valuing Rs.1000/- shall be valid for 180 days with full talk time and when he tied to get the said card charged, it could not be recharged, hence, has to purchase a recharge coupon valuing Rs.1000/- after paying a sum of Rs.1122/- from the OP No.3, but again could not be recharged. Thereafter, it is averred, that the matter was brought to the notice of the OPs, but in vain. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. The OPs, in its written version to the complaint, raised various preliminary objections. The OP No.1, contended that the GPRS facility was present on the said number w.e.f. 08.11.2006, and the setting of the GPRS supported Handset was to be done by the subscriber himself. The complainant has not made any complaint regarding non-activation of GPRS facility. The OP No.2, in its reply has contended that the coupon was to be recharged before 12.09.2006, but the complainant tried to recharge the same, on,07.11.2006, i.e. after the expiry of the recharging date. Hence, it is denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part or that.
3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective rival contentions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, have, also, thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case meticulously.
5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in rendering non-functional his mobile bearing No.94184-00861, inasmuch, as, it failed, to, untenably recharge the coupon, so, purchased by him from the OP No.3. The OPs have contended, that, the complainant had sought, to, recharge the coupon after expiry, of, its validity, which was im-permissible.
6. The complainant, in his, complaint, in paragraph 5 has specifically averred, that, he, was allotted mobile phone connection on, 08.11.2006, and was made non-functional, on, 07.11.2006, whereas, on appraisal of the recharge coupon, it is revealed that, it, was to be recharged before 12.09.2006, hence, when the complainant’s mobile phone was made non-functional on, 07.11.2006, for lack of the activation before the date of its expiry, its having been, hence, rendered non-functional, cannot be construed to be a deficiency, in, service on the part of the OPs. Hence, on mere allegations, not substantiated by cogent proof, it, cannot, be construed, that the coupon, so, purchased, by the complainant, from the OPs, was untenably refused to be recharged by the OPs.
7. So far as the allegation of the complainant regarding non-availability of GPRS facility on his mobile phone is concerned, the OP No.1, in its reply, has specifically contended that the GPRS facility was available on the mobile phone of the complainant w.e.f. 08.11.2006. However, the setting of the GPRS supported handset was to be done by the complainant himself. Therefore, for non-substantiation of the said fact by the complainant, rather, for lapse on his part, the non-availability of the GPRS facility on his mobile phone, cannot be construed to be a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. In nutshell, we have no hesitation to conclude that the complainant has not been able to prove the deficiency on the part of the OPs, hence, the complaint being without any merit, deserves dismissal. Ordered accordingly. No order as to the costs.
8. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 27th day of October, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Karuna Machhan) (Charanjit Singh)
Member Member.
Tags: BSNL