MANJIT SINGH BAL Vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.