PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 14/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Shyam Kumar Guru,

S/O-Basudeb Guru,

R/O-Gujrati Colony,Sambalpur town, PO-Sambalpur,

Ps-Town,Tahasil-Sambalpur,

Dist-Sambalpur-768001, Odisha.                        .……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. Branch Head/Manager, Airtel,

First Floor, City Centre Mall(Bigbazar), Farm Road,

Modipara, PO-Modipara, PS-Town,

Tahasil/Dist-Sambalpur-768002.

2. Senior Head/ Senior Manager, Airtel Head Office,

Unitech World Cyber Park, Sector-39, Tower A,

Fourth Floor, Gurgaon

Haryana Delhi & NCR-122001.

3. Mamita Guru, Aged About 42 years,

D/O- Swetaban Pujari. At C/O-P C Sahu, Sriram Bihar,

Govindtola, PO/PS-Dhanupali,

Tahasil/Dist-Sambalpur-768005.                         ...……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Self
2. For the O.P. No.1 & 2        :- Sri. R.Gupta, Adv. & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.3                           :- Smt. P.Mohapatra, Adv. & Associates

Date of Filing:06.02.2023,  Date of Hearing :10.07.2023  Date of Judgement : 28.08.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a bonafide subscriber of one mobile SIM connection of the OP No.1 and the number was issued/allotted in favour of the Complainant, after due documentation as per the prescribed guidelines by the OP No. 1 on behalf of OP No. 2. The Complainant being a businessman have circulated the said number amongst his clients to carry out day to day affairs. The Complainant on 20.12.2022 came across the fact that the said mobile number stopped working as no massages were received thereafter from the clients and as a result of which he rushed to the office of OP No. 1 to lodge customer complaint regarding the stopped service of the said number, but the Complainant was shocked to know from the dealing assistant of the OP No. 1 that the said number is no more in the name of the Complainant. Thereafter the Complainant ran pillar to post in the Office of the OP No. 1 to ascertain under what & which authority the OP No. 1 has transferred the ownership of the said number without the knowledge & consent/permission and also to collect the information to whom the said number was transferred & under what documentation but in vain. However the Complainant after several attempts came to know that the said number is transferred in the name of OP No. 3 and for proper appreciation and adjudication of the dispute she is impleaded as necessary party to this case. Due to the callousness and uncalled action/conduct of the OP No. 1 & 2, the Complainant not only sustained heavy financial loss due to loss of clients but also suffered huge mental stress & agony and for which the OPs are bound to compensate.
2. The Written Version of the OP NO. 1 & 2 is that the Complainant has arrayed the OP No. 2 to 4 unnecessarily as party to the complaint as there is no iota of allegation against the said OPs and the OP No. 2 to 4 are personally or by virtue of their official capacity have never transacted directly with the Complainant. Hence the name of these OPs should be expunged as such the Complaint should be dismissed for mis-joinder of necessary parties. The number under question had been ported out from the network of Bharati Airtel Limited since March 2022 and if at all the Complainant had not  ported it out the same would have known to him since March 2022 but the Complainant avers that he could came to know in December 2022 that the mobile number stopped working. This clearly explains and established that the Complainant was not the user of the mobile number. It is not correct that the Complainant was informed that the number was no more in his name rather it was informed to the Complainant that the number has been ported out to other network. Accordingly the answering OPs are not deficient in providing service. In this concern it is also worthy to mention here that for porting out of a number ine UPC code is required which can be generated by the user of the number only. Once UPC is generated and out request is placed the service provider in this case Bharati Airtel Limited doesn’t have any control rather to allow the number to be ported out once request is placed with valid UPC code. Hence the answering OPs absolutely got no role in the case as the user of the mobile number had raised the UPC and opted to port out the number. Therefore the complaint is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. The Complainant was not using the number because the number was ported out in March 2022 and the Complainant came to know about the same in December 2022. Hence the averments made by the Complainant regarding loss of client, mental stress and agony are not correct. Hence the complaint is liable to be rejected.

The Written Version of the OP No. 3 is that the OP No. 3 is the wife of the Complainant and so far her knowledge is concerned the Complainant had availed the SIM No. 9040560009 from Reliance Jio but she has no knowledge about the formalities he had done for the said SIM. The Complainant had given the SIM to his daughter for her educational purpose. So it is unbelievable that the same number has been circulated amongst his clients and tagged with important accounts. The Complainant had also given three SIMs to OP No. 3 which was in his name and the OP No. 3 used one of the SIMs for official purpose of her Samsung Mobile service center and also linked the same to her account. After matrimonial dispute arose in 2021 the Complainant played mischief by taking advantage of SIM used by the OP No. 3, which was in his name and started disturbing her customers and company to cause harm in business of OP No. 3. So the OP No. 3 had to port the number to another company. The Complainant has driven out the OP No. 3 and her children on 03.05.2021. So they are staying separately since then. The Complainant has also appropriated money from different banks and private person by forging signature of the OP No. 3. So apprehending mischief for her daughter, the OP No. 3 got SIM No. 904056009 ported to Airtel and also got it registered in her name by giving her document of identity. Under the circumstances the complaint petition filed by the Complainant deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost.

3. From the above it is found that the OP No. 3 is the wife of the Complainant.  The Complainant had given the SIM to his daughter for her educational purpose. The Complainant had also given three SIMs to OP No. 3 which was in his name and the OP No. 3 used one of the SIMs for official purpose of her Samsung Mobile service center and also linked the same to her account. After matrimonial dispute arose between them in 2021, the OP No. 3 had to port the number to another company. The OP No. 3 got SIM No. 904056009 ported to Airtel and also got it registered in her name by giving her document of identity. So there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. Hence the case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.

            Order pronounced in the open Court today on 28^th day of August, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.