The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member) dismissed a revision petition filed by an advocate seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in a dispute concerning the disconnection of his mobile connection, holding that he failed to produce documentary evidence to establish that he had subscribed to a lifetime validity scheme or suffered any loss due to the disconnection.

Facts:

Sanjay Dutt Sharma, a practising advocate, had obtained a mobile connection from Idea Cellular Ltd. on 18 November 2004. He claimed that he had purchased a lifetime validity scheme by paying ₹975 and that the connection was assured to remain valid for life.

According to the complainant , the mobile connection functioned properly until 31 October 2007, after which its services began to deteriorate. Despite making several complaints, the issue was allegedly not resolved. He subsequently learnt that his mobile connection had been permanently terminated. He also alleged that his mobile number was later allotted to another person.

He therefore approached the District Consumer Commission, Haridwar, alleging deficiency in service and sought compensation of ₹20 lakh.

The respondents disputed the allegations, stating that the so-called Lifetime Validity Scheme was valid for 999 days and required the subscriber to recharge thereafter. They contended that the petitioner had failed to recharge the number and that the connection was consequently disconnected. According to the respondents, the connection had remained active from 18 November 2004 to 31 January 2007, totalling 1,077 days, including an additional 78 days beyond the 999-day validity period.

The complaint was initially dismissed by the District Consumer Commission, Haridwar, on 29 June 2010. The complainant's appeal before the State Consumer Commission was also dismissed.

However, the NCDRC subsequently restored the appeal for consideration on merits. Following remand, the State Commission set aside the District Commission's order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

Thereafter, by order dated 30 November 2018, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint, directing the service provider to restore the mobile connection and pay ₹5,000 as damages.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the complainant preferred an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, which was dismissed by the State Commission, leading to the filing of the present revision petition before the NCDRC.

Observation and Decision:

The NCDRC observed that the State Commission had correctly found that the petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence proving that he had purchased a lifetime validity scheme. He also failed to establish that the disconnection of his mobile connection was arbitrary or contrary to the terms and conditions of the scheme. Further, there was no documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged loss or damage suffered by him.

The Commission noted that the petitioner's claim for enhancement of compensation to ₹20 lakh was unsupported by specific and credible evidence. It agreed with the findings of the State Commission and found no material or valid reason to interfere with the factual findings recorded by the consumer commissions below.

The NCDRC also referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sunil Kumar Maity v. SBI, and Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., regarding the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Commission found no ground for interference with the impugned orders and rejected the revision petition as meritless.

Case Title: Sanjay Dutt Sharma v. Idea Cellular Ltd. & Ors.

REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/915/2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order