D.O.F : 19/11/2021
D.O.O : 20/11/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC 213/2021
Dated this, the 20th day of November 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Faisal A P
Fathima Manzil
Poochol, Trikarpur.
Kasaragod district
Kerala – 671310. : Complainant
And
Airtel Mobile Co
SL Avenue, NH Bye pass,
Kundanoor Junction,
Cochin – 682304.
Maradu P O
Kundanoor, Kochi, Kerala.
(Adv: Gopikrishnan Nambiar & Joson Manavalan) : Opposite Party
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that he was using airtel 4G sim card No. 985133554U for the last 8 months. Due to poor connectivity, he was unable to use the mobile No. 9567000002 and it affected the online study of his children. In order to solve the issue, the complainant had decided to port his number to another service provider and sought help from airtel company for identifying a network which is more accessible. The complainant was waiting for 3 months for porting code from airtel company, but so far it is not availed. The complainant is seeking Rs. 1,00,000/- from opposite party for the damages and mental agony undergone by him due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by opposite party.
The opposite party filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either on law or on facts. The complainant has suppressed material facts in the complaint and has approached this honorable commission with unclean hands. The complaint has been filed on an experimental basis solely with an intention to harass opposite party. The opposite party further submits that the subject matter number 9567000002 is a prepaid number which was activated on 25/05/2010. Thereafter the said number was ported out to BSNL network on 28/11/2011 and subsequently was ported back to airtel network on 19/04/2021 in the name of the complainant. Thereafter on 01/11/2021 and on 17/11/2021, the complainant had placed requests for porting out the number. Since the number belong to vanity category, ie, the number being a fancy number, the request for porting out was rejected. The same was done as part of security issues to avoid fraudulent port outs. The averment that there were network issues which caused hindrance to online classes of the children of the complainant is baseless and hence denied. The allegation that the complainant was not provided with the port code is incorrect and hence denied. The subject matter number being a fancy number, as a security condition, the opposite party requested the customer to provide ID proof and sim card photo. This is done so as to avoid fraudulent porting of the said numbers. The further allegation that even though the complainant had contacted the office of opposite party, they had not given any clear reply is incorrect and hence denied. The complainant once again contacted the opposite party and insisted for porting of the number. Then also opposite party requested for the ID proof and sim card photo, so as to initiate the porting out process. But the same was refused by the complainant. There is no cause of action for filing this complaint. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice or negligence on the part of opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the relief sought for in the complaint. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined by the counsel of opposite party as PW1. The opposite party also filed proof affidavit and the documents produced are marked as Ext. B1 and B2. Both sides heard and documents produced. The main issues raised for consideration are;
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties in not porting the mobile number?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief? If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, the issues can be discussed in detail. The complainant was using airtel 4G sim card for the last 8 months, so he is an airtel consumer. Now due to poor connectivity, he was unable to use it. So he had requested to port his number to another service provider which is more accessible. But so far, it is not given. According to opposite party, the above said number is prepaid number which was activated on 25/05/2010. Thereafter the said number was ported out to BSNL network. And subsequently ported back to airtel network on 19/04/2021 in the name of the complainant. The opposite party admits that on 01/11/2021 and 17/11/2021, the complainant had placed requests for porting out the number. The opposite party rejected the request as part of security issues to avoid fraudulent port outs. The opposite party requested for ID proof and sim card photo, so as to initiate the porting out process. The complainant was not ready to cooperate with this request. The opposite party has produced proof copy of the power of attorney issued by them to authorize the representative is marked as Ext. B1. True copy of the message sent by the employee of the opposite party to the complainant on 10/12/2021 along with 65B(4) certification is marked as Ext. B2. The complainant deposed before the commission that, “എന്റെ ഫോൺ നമ്പർ 9567000005. ഈ നമ്പർ ഒരു ഫാൻസി നമ്പരാണ്. പ്രത്യേകം പൈസ അടക്കണം. ഒരു variety നമ്പർ ആണ് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാൽ ശരിയാണ്. മൊബൈൽ കണക്ടിവിറ്റി ലഭിച്ചില്ല എന്ന് കാണിക്കാൻ രേഖകൾ ഒന്നും ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടിയില്ല.” My phone number is 9567000002. This is a fancy number availed on payment of money. Therefore the complainant is definitely a consumer as per CP Act 2019. The complainant further states that “എന്റെ porting request കിട്ടിയതിനു ശേഷം എതിർ കക്ഷി എന്നോട് എന്റെ sim ന്റെ proof ഉം id proof ഉം അയച്ചു കൊടുക്കാൻ ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടത് ഞാൻ അയച്ചു കൊടുത്തില്ല എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ ശരിയാണ്. ഇത് ഒരു variety category ആയതിനാൽ security പ്രശ്നം ഉള്ളതു കൊണ്ടും വ്യാജ porting തടയാനാണ് ഞാൻ sim ന്റെ ഫോട്ടോയും id proof ഉം കമ്പനി ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടത് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാൽ ശരിയല്ല.” Soon after receiving the porting request, the opposite party requested him to send ID proof and sim card photo so as to initiate the porting out process. It is true that I had not complied the above said demand of opposite party.
We carefully gone through the affidavit filed by the complainant and the version and the documents filed by opposite party. The complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as alleged in the complaint. The complainant could not comply the legal demand of opposite party to furnish the documents necessary to port the sim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, hence the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
B1 – True copy of the power of attorney
B2 – True copy of the message
Cross examination
PW1 – Faisal A P
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
