District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.239/2020.
Date of Institution: 06.08.2020.
Date of Order: 15.09.2022.
Smt. Vandana, aged about 32 years, D/o Shri Gopal Singh R/o House NO. 2600, Ground floor, near Shiv Mandir, Sector-3, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Airtel India, Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi through Managing Director/Director.
2. Airtel India, Airtel Service Centre, SCF-65, Basement, sEctor-15, HUDA Market, Near PNB Bank, Faridabad- 121007 Haryana through its Branch Manager.
3. M/s. Vodafone India Limited, Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013, Maharashtra through Managing Director/Director. – given up vide order dated 15.09.2022.
4. M/s. Vodafone India Limited, SCF-61, Urban Estate, Sector-15, Faridabad through its Branch Manager. – given up vide order dated 15.09.2022.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Vishvender Attri, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Vineet M Bajaj, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
Sh. Ankur Kanwar, counsel for opposite parties Nos.3 & 4.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that in the month of February 2017, the complainant had started residing at Bangalore and during her stay she purchased postpaid connection from opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 in the name of her husband Mohit Narwal after paying the requisite charges and after that she was regularly paying the consumed bills to the opposite parties HNos.3 & 4 and from that day she updated the above number in her all communications like bank account, relatives, aadhar card or other purpose. In the month of December 2019 the complainant shifted to Faridabad and for her personal use and due to network problem the complainant ported the above mobile number on her name from Vodafone to Airtel after furnishing their all formalities, submitted her documents and paid requisite charges, vide port request No.VX583284. Accordingly the above mobile number was ported to Airtel form Vodafone after few days and from that day the complainant was using the same for her personal needs. After passing of six months on 30.06.2020 the opposite parties had blocked the above number without any information or notice to the complainant, form that day the complainant was suffering mentally and physically. After that the complainant several times visited to the local service centre and stores of the opposite parties and requested them to issue fresh sim and unblock the number but the opposite parties were not giving any satisfactory response to the complainant. The opposite parties were demanding illegal amount form the complainant to
unblock the mobile number and to issue a fresh sim. The complainant sent legal notice dated 21.07.2020 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) unblock the incoming and outgoing service of the above mobile number of the complainant and to issue a fresh sim card to the complainant.
b) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) any other relief, which the complainant was found, entitled in the facts and circumstances of the complaint and in the eyes of law may also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties with costs of the complaint.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant was no more a prepaid consumer of the answering opposite parties. It was not disputed that the mobile number 9513300320 was earlier under opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 i.e Vodafone India Ltd. Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had no locus standi to file the present complaint. Admittedly, this disputed number was being used by the complainant
since then who then admittedly shifted to Faridabad in 2019 and got the disputed number ported to services of opposite party No.1 in December 2019. The disputed number was not issued in the name of the complainant and the complainant was not a customer to opposite party NO.3. It was also important to mention that the complainant had got no authority letter from her husband with regards to filing of this complaint and had neither pleaded that her husband was incapacitate din any way to file the complaint himself. Thus, in the absence of any authority letter or an explanation as to how her husband was incapacitated to file this complaint because the disputed number had been issued in the name of the husband, the complainant had no locus standi to file this complaint in the first place. It was submitted that at the time of porting out of services of opposite party No.3, there was an outstanding amount of Rs.428.79 which remained unpaid by the complainant even after porting to service of opposite party No.1 despite repeated requests and eiders sent to the complainant. It was pertinent to mention that due were cleared by the complainant on 03.07.2021 i.e. after more than 6 months of porting to the services of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Shri Shivam Takiar, counsel for opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 has made a statement that written statement already filed on behalf of opposite party NO.3 be rad as written statement of opposite party No.4.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Airtel India, Bharti Crescent, with the prayer to: a) unblock the incoming and outgoing service of the above mobile number of the complainant and to issue a fresh sim card to the complainant. b) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation
for causing mental agony and harassment . c) any other relief, which the complainant was found, entitled in the facts and circumstances of the complaint and in the eyes of law may also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties with costs of the complaint.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Vandana, Ex.C1 – Legal notice, Ex.C-2 – postal receipts, Ex.C-3 – wardsapp message.
Ms. Rinki Rawat, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 has made a statement that written version filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 &2 may be read as evidence of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of opposite aprties Nos.1 & 2 has been closed vide order dated 10.08.2022.
As per evidence of opposite parties No.3 Ex.OPW-1/1 affidavit of Amit Kumar Jain, Authorized Representative of opposite party namely Vodafone Idea Ltd., having its registered office at Suman Tower, Plot NO. 18, sEctor-11, Gandhinanagar, Gujarat. Annexue OP3/1 – power of attorney, Ex.OP3/B – Customer Application Form, Ex.OP3/C – MSISDN Inquiry, Ex.OP3/D – Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009, Ex.OP3/E – Customer guide for availing the facility of mob ile number portability, Ex.OP3/F – Customer Application Form,
8. The complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to re-
issue SIM No. 9513300320 from opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 initially. The complaint was filed with the four of the oposite parties. One is of Airtel India, second one was Vodaphone.. During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant suffered a statement that he has NO Claim against opposite parties Nos.3 & 4. Direction may kindly be given to opposite parties Nos.1 & 2for re-issue the Sim No. 9513300320.
9. After going through the evidence led by the both the parties, no doubt Rs.71/- was not paid to the Vodafone after porting phone into opposite parties Nos.1 & 2. The SIM is in the name of Vandana W/o Shri Mohit. The phone was issued in the name of Mohit her husband with the Vodafone. After that SIM was transferred in the name of Vandana and the phone was ported in different carrier i.e opposite parties Nos.1 & 2. During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant also given a statement that they are giving up opposite parties Nos.3 & 4. He also admit that they have to pay Rs.71/- of the previous company i.e opposite parties Nos.3 & 4.
10. After going through the message sent by opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, they are addressing the complainant in their text message to Vandana vide Annexure C1
which reads as under:
“Dear Vandana, 235641 is the One Time Password (OTP) to intiate conversion of your Airtel Number 9513300320 from postpaid to prepaid. Please share this with our customer care specialist.”
11. Keeping in view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to issue the SIM of the same number to the complainant Vandana in due course of law. No cost will be given because the complainant himself stated at Bar that she has to pay Rs.71/- to the Vodafone which is still pending. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 is also directed to re-issue the SIM of the same number to the complainant Vandana, subject to payment of Rs.71/- balance amount of opposite parties Nos.3 & 4. No compensation will be given to the complainant because there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on15.09.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
