STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | | 259 of 2018 |
Date of Institution | | 01.10.2018 |
Date of Decision | | 17.12.2018 |
The Nodal Officer M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. having its Regd. Office H-5/12, Qutab Ambience, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-110030 & having its Circle Office, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technological Park, I.T.Park, Chandigarh.
……Appellant
V e r s u s
1. Arjun Yadav son of Late Shri Ramdev Yadav, Resident of House No.1627, Sector 26, Panchkula.
2. Airtel Store, Shop No. 121, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Partner/ Proprietor.
…….Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 16.08.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 424/2017.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
MR.RAJESH K.ARYA,MEMBER
Argued by: Mr.Rajat Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Ashok Kumar,Advocate for respondents No.1
Respondent No.2 ex parte.
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has filed this appeal against order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), allowing a complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant, granting him the following relief ;
[a] To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;
[b] To pay to the complainant Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.
The awarded amount was ordered to be paid within a fixed period, failing which is was to entail penal consequences.
2. Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that he opted to port out his mobile telephone connection bearing No.9876378100 from the appellant/OP No.1 to another service provider namely Airtel. On making request for porting out his mobile connection, it was told to him that the needful would be done within one week. However, the appellant/OP No.1 failed to do so, on account of which, he suffered a loss. His mobile number was in circulation with various departments, with which, he failed to interact. Legal notice was sent on 18.4.2017, however, appellant/OP No.1 failed to redress his grievance which forced him to file a consumer complaint before the Forum. .
3. Upon notice, reply was filed. It was specifically stated that the number was ported out within the period fixed in the guidelines issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (for short to be referred as TRAI). Pleading no deficiency in providing service, a prayer was made to dismiss the complaint.
4. The Forum, when granting above relief, noted down as under ;
“On perusal of the Customer Guide for availing the facility of Mobile Number Portability, contained in the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009, we find that Clause XII of the said Customer Guide deals with Activation of Ported Number. Needless to mention that the said Clause clearly states that change over takes place on the 7th working day. The Complainant has alleged that the SIM allotted by the Opposite Party No.2 remained off from 08.04.2017 to 15.04.2017 i.e. for 08 days which is more than the permissible period under the Regulations of 2009 ibid. In rebuttal thereto, the Opposite Parties have miserably failed to adduce any documentary evidence, which makes a clear pointer towards the fact the portability was not done within the permissible period as contained in the Regulations of 2009.”
By noting down the guidelines issued by TRAI, it was said that change over was to take place within 7 working days. However, the SIM allotted to the complainant was activated on the 8th day i.e. after the permissible period as per guidelines set out by TRAI.
5. Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the finding given by the Forum is not justified. He has brought to our notice provisions contained in the guidelines issued under the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009 to say that the needful was done within the period fixed in those regulations. He has drawn our attention to guideline Nos.XI and XII, which read as under ;
“Activation of ported number:
XI. Your new mobile service provider will intimate you the date & time of porting on your mobile phone.
XII.Change-over takes place on the 7the working day(15th working day in case of Jammu & Kashmir, Assam and North East service areas).”
It is clearly mentioned that new mobile service provider will intimate the date and time of porting out of the number and it shall take place within 7 working days.
6. So far as the present case is concerned, admittedly mobile number remained off between 8.4.2017 to 15.4.2017 and it was made operational on the last date, referred to above. However, by taking above fact into consideration, it cannot be said that there was any violation of regulations issued by TRAI. The guidelines referred to above, clearly mentioned that ported out mobile number will be made operational within 7 working days, and if, in between, there was any non-working day that has to be excluded.
We have seen the calendar for the year 2017 and on 9th April, it was Sunday. If that one day is excluded, the mobile connection of the respondent No.1/complainant was made operation within the prescribed period. If that is so, it is proved that mobile number was made operational on 7th working day. The above said fact was not considered by the Forum and accordingly an error was committed when granting the relief.
7. For the reason recorded above, this appeal succeeds and the order, under challenge, is set aside. Consequently, the complaint fails and also stands dismissed.
8 . Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
9. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
