Manjit Singh Bal vs BHARTI AIRTEL LTD

ARGUMENTS heard. Order after lunch. In this revision petition there is challenge to impugned order dated 08.01.2013 passed by State Commission, Delhi vide which First Appeal No.392/2010 filed by Respondent/Opposite Party was allowed.

BRIEF facts of this case are that Petitioner/Complainant filed a complaint against the respondent/Opposite Party with the allegation that on 03.09.2009 he was having a mobile set of Bharti Airtel bearing No. 9810866328 and thus the subscriber of the respondent. On 03.09.2009, the mobile set was stolen against which First Information Report was lodged at Gulmohar Park, Defence Colony. On 5.9.09, the petitioner applied for duplicate sim card and also paid Rs. 75/ - for duplicate sim and he was assured that the phone connection will be reactivated within 24 hours. The mobile was not activated whereupon he sent a letter on 23.9.2009 and also called the customer care. The petitioner is a practicing advocate and he sustained loss in the profession, therefore, he prayed that a compensation of Rs. 75,000/ - for mental agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/ - towards the cost of litigation be awarded.

RESPONDENT has filed the reply and denied the entire allegations. However, it was admitted that a request for duplicate sim card was made by the petitioner and activation within 24 hours shall be made which means 24 working hours. The duplicate sim card who purchased on 5.9.09 which was a Saturday and was promptly activated on 7.9.09 i.e. Monday. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The District Forum vide order dated 18.3.10 has awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/ - as litigation cost.

BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 18.3.10, the respondent preferred appeal before the State Commission, which allowed it vide the impugned order and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.

HENCE , the present revision petition.

WE have heard learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the record.

IT is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that grievance of the petitioner was not redressed by the respondent till 23.09.2009, though petitioner has applied for duplicate sim card on 05.09.2009 and has also paid sum of Rs.75/ - for that purpose on the assurance of the respondent that phone connection would be activated within 24 hours. Thus, there is deficiency on the part of the respondent, District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint whereas, State Commission failed to take note of the fact, that sim card was activated only on 23.09.2009, that is, after about 18/19 days of purchase of sim card by the petitioner.

THE State Commission in its impugned order has observed; "It is admitted that the mobile set of the respondent was stolen by someone on 3.9.2009 for which the FIR was lodged by him with the concerned police station. It is also admitted by the respondent -complainant that he applied for the duplicate sim card on 5.9.2009. The counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the sim card will be activated within 24 hours which means working 24 hours. Admittedly, sim card was purchased on 5.9.2009 which was a Saturday. 6.9.2009 was a Sunday and it as activated on next working day i.e. 7.9.2009. The appellant has filed paper Annexure -1 which goes to show that the sim card which was purchased by the respondent on 5.9.2009, was activated on 7.9.2009 and 5.9.2009 was Saturday and 6.9.2009 was Sunday. Obviously, the sim card was activated within 24 working hours. The District Forum has committed a grave error in recording a finding against the appellant.

AS per copy of affidavit by way of evidence produced by the respondent before the District Forum and placed on record of this Commission, the respondent''s official has clearly stated in his affidavit that the duplicate Sim card purchased on 5/09/09, a Saturday, was promptly activated on 7/09/09 i.e. Monday. It is stated that activation within 24 hours is deemed to be within 24 working hours.

IN addition, as per copy of print screen filed along with written statement of the respondent placed on pages no.56 to 61 of the paper book, the sim card was activated on 07.09.2009. Thus, State Commission rightly observed in its impugned order, that the sim card was activated within 24 working hours. This finding of the State Commission is further supported by the evidence of the respondent as well as copy of the print screen.

UNDER these circumstances, we do not find any reason to disagree with the finding given by the State Commission. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The present revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.