AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MR. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, learned Counsel for the complainant Ravinder Singh Lamba has been heard at length and the entire record has been perused.
NOTICE was issued to the opposite parties after the complaint was registered on 4.11.1999 here. The prayers in the complaint are as follows: (a) direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,00,000 to the complainant on account of loss of reputation/credibility by the complainant; and (b) direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,00,000 to the complainant on account of mental agony/torture suffered by the complainant; and (c) direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to the complainant on account of loss of business; and (d) direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 21,000 to the complainant on account of legal expenses; and (e) pass such further order(s) as this Hon''ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
The only basis of the complaint is that the opposite parties who are described as supplying cellular phone connection to various subscribers/consumers, defaulted in the following manner. It allotted Sim Card No. 11435 which was activated on Mobile Phone No. 98360-27677. This observation is made on the basis of actual pleading as it exists in paragraph-B of paragraph 3 of the complaint.
In sub-paragraph -D of paragraph-3, it is stated that on the Sim Card No. 11435 Mobile Phone No. 27623 was being used by the complainant. The allegation further is that the said Sim Card No. 11498 was wrongly indicating telephone No. 27678.
IT was argued by Mr. Chhabra that the complainant made applications to the opposite party to correct the telephone No. corresponding with the sim card issued to the complainant. The only alleged evidence about the wrong telephone number having been issued allegedly consist of a news paper report and alleged certificate issued by one of the opposite parties. The original has not been produced inasmuch as the said certificate has no reason to be accepted because no such occasion has arisen to issue such a certificate.
THE learned Counsel argued that alleged involvement of the complainant in an abduction/kidnapping case was wrongly made by the Police Station concerned on the basis of the alleged wrong telephone number against the sim card number issued to the complainant. He argued further that if the telephone number could have been corrected, his involvement in the case may not have been determined even prima facie. THEre is a great fallacy in the aforesaid argument. Admittedly the bills have been sent at the number which the complainant describes as wrong telephone number. Had it been so the complainant should have at once got the matter corrected or should have preferred to throw out the telephone and asked the opposite parties to make compensation. It is obvious that the prosecution has linked the telephone number with sim card and has suspected association of the complainant with criminals who are involved in the abduction/kidnapping case. Under these circumstances, the summary proceedings cannot be used by the complainant and the matter requires serious deliberations, prima facie the number allotted for which bills have been issued indicates the name of Ravinder Singh Lamba.
THE complaint is, therefore, dismissed.
LET copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Complaint dismissed.