Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3249
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD
G. Radha Rani, President, R.S. Rajeshree, Member
T. Vijay Hunuman Singh – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Bharathi Airtel – Respondent
F.A. No.188 OF 2022 | CC.No.303 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s. B. Rakesh
For the Respondents: M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates
A consumer claiming deficiency of service for a deactivated SIM must provide cogent evidence of requests for activation; continued payment of bills for the disputed period creates a presumption that the service was active and functional.
Headnote:The appellant filed an appeal under S.41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, challenging the dismissal of a complaint regarding the non-activation of a SIM card (No. 9949131721) after it was lost and blocked. The appellant alleged deficiency of service, claiming that despite multiple requests, the respondent failed to activate the number. The District Commission had previously dismissed the complaint based on a joint memo. The primary issues were whether the respondent failed to activate the SIM despite requests and whether the SIM remained deactivated from June 2017. The court reasoned that the appellant failed to provide cogent evidence of the activation requests, noting that the submitted emails and legal notices were undated or lacked proof of service. Furthermore, the court held that the appellant's continued payment of bills for the disputed period strongly indicated that the service was active, as a prudent person would not pay for a deactivated connection. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the dispute regarding sim loss and subsequent activation requests. (Para 10) |
| 2. consumer commissions maintain jurisdiction over telecom disputes notwithstanding the telegraph act. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. evaluation of technical evidence and call data in determining service status. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 4. burden of proof lies with the complainant; bill payments imply active service. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal due to failure to prove deficiency of service. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER:
(HON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, NON-JUDICIAL)
01. This appeal is filed by the Complainant being aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by the District Commission and the same is filed U/s.41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by appellant/complainant praying this Commission:
I. To set aside the order dated 09.03.2021 passed in CC No.303 of 2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III and allow this petition.
II. To direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and the inconvenience caused to his clients.
(Note: Amended prayer of compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.75,000/- as per the orders in RP No.17 of 2019 on the file of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad against IA No.235 of 2018 in CC No. 303 of 2017 on the file of District Commission-III, Hyderabad.
III. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1000/- for the trips to Franchise at Abids in the interest of justice.
02. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as complainant and opposite party as arrayed in the complaint.
03. The case of the complainant is that he has subscribed two Sim Cards bearing No.09949131721 and No.09908131721 from the opposite party and that he has been making payments regularly without any default. That on 14.06.2016 he lost his phone which contained both the Sims as such immediately he had made a request to the opposite party to block both the numbers. Later he approached the office of the opposite party situated at Abids requesting to activate the said numbers, upon which the executive of opposite party had activated Sim No.9908131721 on 17.06.2017 at 9.00 p.m., however failed to activate Sim No.9949131721; that since then the complainant has been repeatedly requesting by personally visiting the office and through phone calls and had also sent a mail to activate the Sim which was acknowledged by the opposite party by a reply mail dated 20.06.2017. Despite the same the opposite party failed to activate the Sim as such a written complaint was made through RPAD seeking damages and compensation. The opposite party received the same but however failed to respond. While things stood thus, he was surprised to receive an AIRTEL 4G- BAHUBALI SIM CARE (WITH No.8991000900-440779158U) through post. As such he immediately installed the said Sim expecting to be a Sim for Number No.9949131721. But, however, it was not so. That since the day of deactivation he had installed around four to five Sim Cards. But he would not get the Sim Card No.9949131721 that this act of carelessness in not activating the Sim despite several requests, amounts to deficiency of service. As such a complaint was filed before the District Commission.
04. The opposite parties filed their written version while admitting that the complainant had availed two Sim Cards bearing No.9949131721 and No.9908131721. But, however opposed the complaint on the grounds of maintainability as under:
That as per the Section 7B of Telegraph Act, 1885 and as per the remedies available under Tele-Com Consumer Protection and Redressal of Grievances Regulation Act, 2007 , the complainant is expected to approach the grievance cell and any disputes arising are to be decided by way of arbitration. The complainant without exhausting the said remedy had approached this Commission.
The opposite party further relied on Supreme Court Judgment General Mangar T
