Date of filing:- 11/03/2020.

Date of Order:-30/04/2024.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B A R G A R H (ODISHA).

Consumer Complaint No. 30 of  2020.

            Bailochan Pradhan, aged about 38(thirty eight) years, son of Brajabandhu Pradhan, Resident of Sar Factory, Dang, Po. Bardol, Ps/Tahasil. Bargarh, Dist. Bargarh, Odisha                                                                     .....       .....     .....                     Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

1. T.R.A.I.Ltd., represented through its Chairman, Mahanagar Door Sanchar Bhawan, (Next to Zakir Hussan College), Jawaharlal Neheru Marg, (old minto road), New Delhi-110002.
2. Bharati Airtel Ltd., represented through its Nodal Officer, Airtel, infocity Campus, 6^th floor, E-13/1 Chandaka Industrial estate, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751024
3. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., represented through its Nodal Officer, Vodafone, unit-41, E-52, Infocity Campus, E-13-1 Chandaka Industrial estate, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswear-751024.
4. Pradeep Debta, Proprietor of Debta Enterprises, Rajib Gandhi Chowk, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh, 768018.                              .....            .....       .....   Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-            Sri T.C.Tripahty, Advocate with associates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one):-     Himself

For the Opposite Party No.2(two):-     Sri T.K.harichandan, Advocate with associates.

For the Opposite Party No.3(three):-   Sri , D.K.Nanda, Advocate with associates.

For the Opposite Party No.4(four):-    Ex-parte.

                                                            -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra               .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agrawal             .....            .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.30/04/2024.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President:-   

1)         The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has taken SIM bearing mobile No. 9777977797 of Opposite Party No.2(two) in his name about ten years back. The Complainant and his family member are using the said SIM bearing mobile No. 9777977797 uninterruptedly and linked with their bank accounts and receiving regular messages and phone calls through that number. On 15-02-2020 the Complainant found that signal of Opposite Party No.2(two) was interrupted in the SIM bearing mobile No. 9777977797 but the Complainant did not take it seriously as it is a common phenomenon due to poor signal and resumes automatically. When the signal of mobile network of the above SIM number did not resume till 17-02-2020 the Complainant contracted with the customer care of Opposite Party No.2(two) who advised the Complainant to contact with Opposite Party No.4(four), the authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.2(two). Accordingly the Complainant contacted with the Opposite Party No.4(four) and lodged his grievances and after verifying his customer record data the Opposite Party No.4(four) issued a fresh SIM of that number i.e. 9777977797 after keeping all relevant papers and received ₹50/-(Rupees fifty)only against money receipt on 18-02-2020 towards the new SIM charges and assured the Complainant that the SIM will be activated after four hours of installation. At about 10.30 PM on 18-02-2020 the aforesaid SIM number was activated and the Complainant and his family member were enjoying all services till about 8 PM of 20-02-2020 as earlier and suddenly the signal was again interrupted. The Complainant again contacted with Opposite Party No.4(four) and lodged his grievances regarding disappearing of network who consoled the Complainant not to bother as that may be happened due to inclement weather and wait for some time. The Complainant waited till 26-02-2020. On 26-02-2020 the Complainant contacted with the Opposite Party No.4(four) who after verifying his data record informed that the data of Complainant as well as the SIM No. 9777977797 is not showing in their network. Immediately the Complainant contacted with the customer care of Opposite Party No.2(two) who too replied the same thing in a casual manner and expressed his inability to provide said SIM number and told him to take other SIM number if he wants to avail their service. Listening such statement the Complainant became startled as he is using SIM bearing mobile No. 9777977797 of Opposite Party No.2(two) since last ten years. The Complainant suffered a lot becaused he could not contact with his family and friends and did not received messages from bank as the said SIM Number has been lined with the Bank Account. On 27-02-2020 the Complainant received telephone call from 9583194528 who claims himself as officer of customer care of Opposite Party No.2(two) and requested the Complainant not to bother for SIM No. 9777977797 and to take another number. After that talk the Complainant came to know that said number 9583194528 relates to Opposite Party No.3(three) as shown in his mobile. To ascertain who has been alloted with said SIM No.9777977797, the Complainant dialed on that number but received tone message “Vodafone Number is switch off”.  The act and attitude of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission.

2)         The case of the Opposite Parties is that Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.3(three) appeared and filed their versions. The Opposite Party No.4(four) did not appear and did not file its version. Hence Opposite Party No.4(four) is set ex-parte.

            The Opposite Party No.1(one) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) submitted that TRAI is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. TRAI is a statutorily constituted body under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997. TRAI has been established to regulate the telecommunication services, to protect the interest of service providers and consumers of the telecom sector and to promote and ensure orderly growth of the telecom sector and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 27 of the TRAI Act prescribes that no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which TRAI is empowered by or under TRAI Act to determine. The Consumer Protection  Act has been enacted for protection of the interests of consumers and the provisions of C.P.Act apply to consumers, sellers of goods and providers of services. TRAI is neither a seller of goods nor a service provider to the Complainant and therefore provisions of C.P. Act are not applicable to TRAI. There is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the Complainant and TRAI. Hence the Opposite Party No.1(one) prayed for dismissal of case against Opposite Party No.1(one).

            The Opposite Party No.2(two) Bharati Airtel Ltd. is a service provider. The Opposite Party No.2(two) submitted that the Complainant's SIM card containing the mobile number as mentioned in the complaint petition was ported out to the network of Opposite Party No.4(four). In this regard it is submitted that one Unique Porting Code (UPC) was generated against the alleged number. Once the UPC is generated and request received by the Donor Operator (DO) from the Recipient Operator(RO), the Donor Operator has no option than to release the number and once the number is released, the Donor Operator in this case the answering Opposite Party loses control over the number. Hence the complaint against the Opposite Party is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.

            The Opposite Party No.3(three) submitted that Vodafone Mobile Services Limited got amalgamated with and into Idea Celluar Limited with effect from 31^st August 2018. The transferor companies i.e. Vodafone-Mobile Service Limited stand dissolved and the name of transferee company i.e. Idea Cellular Limited has been changed from Idea Cellular Limited to Vodafone Idea Limited with effect from 31^st August 2018. Further the Opposite Party No.3(three) submitted that the mobile connection bearing mobile No. 9777977797 was once alloted to the Complainant  by the answering party on 21-06-2013 when the Complainant himself ported-in-his said mobile number 9777977797 from Airtel-Odisha to Vodafone-Odisha. Later the Complainant himself again ported-out his said mobile number -9777977797 from Vodafone-Odisha back to Airtel-Odisha on 12-03-2016. The Complainant had thereafter never ported his mobile number 9777977797 back for the services of the Answering party i.e. Vodafone Idea Limited. The Opposite Party No.3(three) submitted that there is nothing on record to show that there has been any relationship with the Answering party i.e. Vodafone Idea Limited and the complaint in relation to disconnection of the alleged mobile number 9777977797 of the Complainant in February-2020. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3)         After perusal of complaint petition, versions and documents filed by the Parties following issued are framed:-

Issues

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer ?
2. Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in service ?
3. What the Complainant is entitled to get relief ?

Issue No.1(one)

4)         After perusal of records it reveals that the Complainant has paid ₹50/-(Rupees fifty)only to the Opposite Party No.4(four) who is the dealer of Opposite Party No.2(two) on 18-02-2020 for a SIM for mobile No. 9777977797. Accordingly the Complainant is a consumer. The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2(two)

5)         The Complainant paid ₹50/-(Rupees fifty)only for the Airtel SIM to Opposite Party No.4(four) on Dt.18-02-2020. As per submission of Opposite Party No.3(three) after 12-03-2016 the Complainant never ported out his mobile number 9777977797 for service of Opposite Party No.3(three). The Opposite Party No.2(two) submitted the mobile number of the Complainant ported out to the network of Vodafone. But the Opposite Party No.2(two) did not submit any document about portability. As the Complainant is the consumer of Opposite Party No.2(two), it was the duty of the Opposite Party No.2(two) to provide proper service to the Complainant. But the Opposite Party No.2(two) along with Opposite Party No.4(four) did not provide proper service to the Complainant. Again non-submission of document regarding portability amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2(two). The Opposite Party No.4(four) is deficient in service as Opposite Party No.4(four) is the dealer of Opposite Party No.2(two). The Opposite Party No.1(one) TRAI as the statutory body and Opposite Party No.3(three) have no liability. The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.3(three)

6)         For deficiency in service of the Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.4(four) the Complainant is entitled to get relief. The issue is answered accordingly.

            As per supra discussion the following order is passed:-

                                                            O  R  D  E  R

7)         The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.4(four) and dismissed against Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.3(three). The Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.4(four) are directed, jointly and severally to re-issue the SIM No. 9777977797 in favour of Complainant within one month from the date of this Order. Further the Opposite Party No. 2(two) and No.4(four) are directed, jointly and severally to pay ₹20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only compensation for deficiency in service and ₹10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation expenses to the Complainant, failing which, the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.

8)         Order pronounced in the open court on 30^th day of April 2024.

            Supply free copies to the Parties.

                                                                                             Typed to my dictation

                                                                                              and corrected by me.

                                    I agree,                                          ( Smt.Jigeesha Mishra)

                                                                                                    P r e s i d e n t.

                       (Smt. Anju Agrawal)

                             M e m b e r(w).