BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.28 of 2016

Date of Instt. 13.01.2016

Date of Decision: 21.03.2017

Jatinder Jain Age 28 years, S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, H.No.2550, Mohalla Dhiran, Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar. Mobile No.98150-90500

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Airtel Store, Jyoti Chowk, Jalandhar Through its Manager/Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.

2. Bharti Airtel, Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kung, Phase-2, New Delhi-110070 Through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Representative.

........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

OP No.1 exparte.

Sh. MS Sachdev, Adv Counsel for OP No.2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that he is subscriber of mobile phone No.98150-90500 in his name. Previously the above said connection was Prepaid connection which was issued by the opposite parties. The complainant used this connection for about six years. In last year the complainant got merged the above said connection to post-paid with Tata Docomo. The opposite parties issued same mobile number(98150-90500) of complainant to other person namely Mr. Mohd. Ali S/o Shamshed Ali resident of Ahmadgarh, Distt. Ludhiana who told the complainant to close said number as this number is being used by him and the opposite parties have allotted this number to him. On receipt of the information from the above said person, the complainant immediately went to opposite party No.1 and told them that the above said connection number of complainant is also running with Mr.Mohd. Ali who is using the said number. On the request of complainant the opposite party No.1 verified that the mobile connection No.98150-90500 of complainant is being used by above said person Mr.Mohd.Ali due to re-issued by mistake. At first the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and requested them to close the said mobile number(98150-90500) of Mr. Mohd. Ali as the complainant is first owner and subscriber of this number. The opposite party No.1 told the complainant that the request of complainant has been registered which would be sent to opposite party No.2 and it would take some time for closing the said number. The complainant visited the opposite party No.1 more than 15 times but neither any action taken on the request of complainant nor the duplicate number issued to above said Mohd. Ali ceased by OPs. The complainant also visited Airtel Store, Division No.3 at Ludhiana and requested them to close the same mobile number issued to other person. The Airtel Store Division No.3, Ludhiana assured and told the complainant that the same second mobile number issued to above said Mohd.Ali would be closed within a few days but many days passed the said number is still running with Mohd. Ali and has not been closed till date. Several times the complainant made telephonic calls to opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 told the complainant that by mistake the same number had been issued to Mohd. Ali and now the said mobile number would be closed soon and any other number would be allotted to him. More than 8 months have passed but the opposite parties have neither disconnected nor closed the same number running with above said Mohd. Ali. Whenever the complainant intend to receive back call from his relatives and friends, instead of his relatives and friends, some one ask for Mohd. Ali. The opposite parties should have issued any other mobile number to Mohd. Ali but intentionally and deliberately the opposite parties have issued same mobile connection number of complainant to Mohd. Ali which tantamount to unfair trade practice whereas the opposite parties were well known that the said mobile number 98150-90500 was already allotted to complainant and the same number was merged to Tata Docomo and is being used by the complainant and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the request that the OPs be directed to close the same mobile connection number of complainant running with other person namely Mohd. Ali and to pay the cost of litigation Rs.3300/- and further to pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties but OP No.1 despite service did not bother to appear and ultimately he was proceeded against exparte whereas OP No.2 appeared through his counsel Mr. M.S. Sachdev, Adv who got number of opportunities even with cost but failed to file written reply and ultimately OP No.2 was debarred from filing reply by my Predecessor.

3. In order to prove his case, complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex. C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.

4. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith document Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

5. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6. After taking into consideration the submissions, we find that the OP No.2 miserably failed to controvert the allegations made in the complaint because the OP No.2 failed to file reply, no doubt an opportunity was provided by my Predecessor to OP No.2 to lead evidence and accordingly OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of one Sh. Shreya Manhas Ex.OP2/A wherein made general allegations and took only one plea that the mobile number in question i.e. 98150-90500 is not working in Airtel Network but other allegations are not reply in any manner in the said affidavit. So, under these circumstances, we find that the allegations made by the complainant that he was having a prepaid connection of mobile number 98150-90500 which is used for about 6 years and thereafter the complainant got merged the above said connection to postpaid with Tata Docomo. To prove this factum, the complainant placed on file Bill Ex.C1 and but despite getting portability the OP No.1 and 2 issued the said mobile number 98150-90500 to one Mr. Mohd. Ali S/ Shamshed Ali resident of Ahmadgarh, Distt. Ludhiana which is apparently unfair trade practice and deficiency in service because the OP has no right to issue the said number to any other until the same is not got closed by the OP. So, with these observations, we are of the considered opinion that there are much substances in the submission of the complainant and therefore complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to close the mobile number 98150-90500 in the name of Mr. Mohd. Ali and restore the said connection in the name of the complainant and further to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for mental tension and harassment and also paid litigation expenses Rs.1500/- to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order otherwise the OPs are liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.6500/- @ 9% from the date of filing complaint till realization. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

7. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

21.03.2017 Member President