Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/254

Harmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

-

18 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                 Complaint No: 254 of 18.03.2014

                                                                                                                    Date of Decision: 18.02.2015

                                                                                                                   

Harmeet Singh s/o S.Sukhwinder Singh, R/o H.No.1922/50, Street no.7-1/2, Near Jeeto Market, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.

……Complainant

Versus 

1. Bharti Airtel Ltd. Plot no.21, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, Chandigarh, 160101, through Head Administrator.

2. Bharti Airtel Ltd. IC-Tower, G-454, B.R.S.Nagar, Opp. Verka Milk Plant, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through Head Aministrator.

3. Idea Cellular Ltd. Corporate office, 5^th Floor, Windsor, CST Road, Kalina Santa Cruz (E) Mumbai 400 098, through Head Administrator.

4. Idea Cellular Ltd. Corporate office, SCO-21, First Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through Head Admininstrator.

…..Opposite parties 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                    Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                   Smt.Babita, Member

 

Present:       Sh.G.S.Mehni, Advocate for complainant.

       Sh.Deepak Kumar, Advocate for OP1 and OP2.

       Sh.Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate for OP3 and OP4.

 

                   

                        ORDER

 

(SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

 

 

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Harmeet Singh s/o S.Sukhwinder Singh, R/o H.No.1922/50, Street no.7-1/2, Near Jeeto Market, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred to as ‘complainant’) against Bharti Airtel Ltd. Plot no.21, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, Chandigarh, 160101, through Head Administrator and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to immediately resume the services of phone connection no.97798-99798 as all the dues were cleared by the complainant till date, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs.7500/- as litigation expenses alongwith any other additional or alternate relief to which the complainant may be found entitled.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the subscriber of Airtel with phone connection no.97798-99798 for the last about five years. Being dissatisfied with the services of Airtel, the complainant applied to get ported his above said mobile connection from Airtel to Idea after clearing all the dues of Airtel on 1.4.13. After the portability of the complainant’s above said connection no.97798-99798 from Aitel to Idea all facilities like outgoing and incoming calls and other value added services were being used from the service of Idea and the complainant also paid bill to the amount of Rs.1433/- to Idea Cellular Ltd. On dated 7.10.13, vide receipt no.I 380230. After 7.10.13 suddenly all the services blocked without any prior notice. When the complainant asked from Idea, it was told that outstanding arrears of approximately Rs.5400/- were still due towards Airtel to be paid bythe complainant. Though at the time of portability, complainant made clear all the dues towards Airtel, but for the sake of his business and to avoid any financial loss due to disconnection of the phone number under illegal compulsion, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5000/- to Airtel through Cambel Communications, Airtel Relationship Centre, on 10.10.13, vide receipt no.6876 and further on 19.10.13 paid Rs.420/- at Sunil Agencies, Airtel Relationship Centre, vide receipt no.9264 as full and final payment. Despite payment by the complainant of all the dues of Airtel in respect of his above said connection, the phone services were not activated. The complainant requested to Idea and Airtel to activate the said connection, but no one acceded to the genuine request of the complainant. Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 29.12.13 calling upon Idea and Airtel to resume services, but despite the notice, Idea and Airtel have not resumed the services and continuously harassing the complainant by referring the complainant to each other. Complainant also got served a further legal notice dated 13.2.14 in continuance of said above legal notice dated 29.12.13 upon the Ops, through his counsel. But despite receipt of the notice, the Ops have failed to redress the grievances of the complainant. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OP1 and OP2 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that no cause of action ever accrued in favour of the complainant; complainant has suppressed various facts from this Forum and complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and vague; the Forum does not have the jurisdiction to try and determine the present complaint. Further stated that the Bharti Airtel Ltd, is a company incorporated under the companies act and is providing mobile connectivity to the prospective subscribers under license from the Ministry of Telecommunications, Govt. of India under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Indian Telegraph act is applicable to the replying Ops, as per the license issued to the Ops under section 4 of the said act. On merits, denying the allegations of all other paras stated that the number of the complainant was ported out from the network of replying Ops on 9^th April, 2013 and bill was generated in completion of cycle and it was the responsibility of the subscriber to clear all the dues on regular basis. Further stated that under the guidelines any subscriber who intends to port out to any other mobile service provider, from his original service provider, he/she has to send a port out request SMS on 1900 number. The request can only be sent from the mobile which was intended to be ported out and he was supposed to pay all the dues at the time of portability of the said connection. Further stated that complainant had even complained of barring of number on TRAI portal. The copy of his complaint and the revert on complainant clearly clinches the matter in issue. The proposal of the same clarifies that the complainant had cleared dues after long time, despite being intimated of the same in June, 2013. The complaint’s number was temporarily barred, but he had cleared his dues in October 13, after disconnection of number in Idea in July 13. Complainant despite knowing the fact that there were dues pending against his number cleared the same after the number was disconnected by Idea. Further denying the contents of all other para OP1 and OP2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Similarly written statement on behalf of OP3 and OP4 was also filed, wherein, certain preliminary objections have been taken that the answering Ops are unnecessarily been dragged in the present litigation; complaint is frivolous and vexatious and deserves to be dismissed with special cost of Rs.10,000/- u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. Further stated that for the procedure of seeking the number portable facility is that first the customer send a message (SMS) from its number, requesting for unique porting code (UPC), then the service provider give UPC code and intimate the subscriber through SMS and the subscriber retain such UPC in its record for the purpose of its verification of porting request for portability of service provider. The recipient operator on receipt of the porting request from the subscriber shall ask the subscriber to send a SMS to a specific short code of the donor operator from the subscriber’s mobile number which is sort to be ported, upon receipt of the SMS from the subscriber number, the donor operator shall send back the reply SMS containing UPC, upon receipt of UPC from donor operator, the subscriber shall incorporate the same porting request form and the recipient operator shall within 24 hour forward the mobile number, UPC and date on which the porting request is made to the concerned Mobile Number Portability Service Provider. After verifying the necessary eligibilities, the mobile number portability Service Provider shall forward the details of such request to the donor operator for seeking his clearance for such porting. On receipt of such detail, the donor operator within 24 hour respond to Mobile Number Portability Service Provider and if there is no objection on the part of donor operator upon receipt of communication, the mobile number Portability Service Provider shall allocate the corresponding location route number to the port number to its immediate effect. In case of non-payment of any outstanding bills issued to the subscriber for the services availed till the disconnection of mobile from the network of donor operator, the donor operator shall communicate the detail of such outstanding bills to the recipients operator through the Mobile Number Portability Service Provider with an advise to take action for disconnecting the ported number. Further stated that after completing all the formalities, the number of the complainant was ported in by the answering Ops being recipient operator on 8.4.13, but on 1.6.13 request was received from Airtel to disconnect the number, as an amount of Rs.5417/- was outstanding towards the Airtel Company by the complainant, so the number was suspended on 14.6.13. On merits, submitted that the contents of para no.2, 4, 7 are matter of record, contents of para no.3 admitted to the extent that the complainant applied to get ported his mobile connection, contents of para no.5 is correct to the extent that Rs.5417/- was outstanding towards the complainant of the donor operator i.e. Airtel and as per the guidelines of the TRAI, the services of the complainant has to be debarred/suspended on 14.6.13, until and unless the above said amount is not cleared with the donor operator, but the complainant failed to do so in the prescribed period, as such the service of the complainant were disconnected . Further denying the contents of all other remaining paras of the complaint, answering OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

5.                It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the complaint an application for dismissal of the complaint on behalf of OP1 and OP2 and an application u/s 2 (d) (g) and (o) and section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act for dismissal of the complaint moved on behalf of OP3 and OP4 was filed. The application moved by OP1 and OP2 was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 11.09.14. Application moved on behalf of OP3 and OP4 was also decided and dismissed on 11.09.14, after receiving the reply to the application from the complainant.

6.                Ld. counsel for complainant has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant Sh.Harmeet Singh Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP1 and OP2 has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Manu Sood, Asstt. Manager Legal and Regulatory, Bharti Airtel Ltd. Plot no.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park Chandigarh, Ex.RA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement of OP1 and OP2 and also attached documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. Whereas, Ld. counsel for OP3 and OP4 has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Manoj Madan, Authorized Signatory, Idea Cellular Limited, Plot no.C-105, Phase-VII, Industrial Area, Mohali Ex.RA3, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement of OP3 and OP4 and also attached document Ex.R3/1.

7.                Case was fixed for arguments. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued orally that the complainant is the subscriber of Airtel with phone connection no.97798-99798 for the last about five years. Being dissatisfied with the services of Airtel, the complainant applied to get ported his above said mobile connection from Airtel to Idea after clearing all the dues of Airtel on 1.4.13. After the portability of the complainant’s above said connection no.97798-99798 from Airtel to Idea, all the services provided by the Idea were being used by the complainant and complainant also paid bill to the amount of Rs.1433/- to Idea Cellular Ltd. on dated 7.10.13. But surprisingly, all the services of the complainant connection were blocked without any prior notice. When the complainant asked from Idea, it was told that outstanding arrears of approximately Rs.5400/- were still due towards Airtel to be paid by the complainant. However, complainant already cleared all the dues towards Airtel, but for the sake of his business and to avoid any financial loss due to disconnection of the phone number, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5000/- to Airtel on 10.10.13, vide receipt no.6876 and further on 19.10.13 paid Rs.420/- at Sunil Agencies vide receipt no.9264 as full and final payment. Despite payment by the complainant of all the dues of Airtel in respect of his above said connection, the phone services were not activated. The complainant requested the Idea and Airtel to activate the said connection, but with no result.

8.                Refuting the allegations leveled by the complainant, Ld. counsel for OP1 and OP2 filed their written arguments averring that complaint is not maintainable; there is no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant and further averred that complainant stood provided desired services. Out of his own desire the complainant ported out from the network of OP on 9^th April, 2013. But there was an outstanding amount of Rs.5417/- towards the complainant, so the mobile number of the complainant was suspended on 14.6.13. It was obligatory on the part of the complainant and further reiterated the procedure as to how the portability is to be effected. Further stated that the number was not ported into Idea Network and as per guidelines intimation stood sent through the MNP Portal of pending dues against the number of the complainant. After the number is ported out from replying OP’s network. There was no control of OP on the deactivation. It is submitted that for the pending dues of the NP Operator was intimated and the complainant was also intimated by his new operator pendency. The complainant knew about the pending dues, but due failed to clear them in time.

9.                Similarly, Ld. counsel for OP3 and OP4 filed written arguments averring that complainant sought portability facility floated under Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and transferred his number with the OP3 and OP4, but the services upon the said number were barred. The complainant approached them on 30.04.13 with UPC Code issued by the OP1 and OP2 upon the above said number and after completing the formalities, the number was ported by the OP3 and OP3 on 8.4.13 following the guidelines and procedure of TRAI. On 1.6.13 the OP1 and OP2 disconnected the service of the said number as Rs.5417/- was outstanding against them, as such the number was suspended on 14.6.13. Since then neither the OP1 and Op2 nor the complainant had approached the OP3 and OP4 for continuing of the service of the said number and the said number was released to the Op1 and Op2 by the OP3 and OP4 and prayed that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed being false and frivolous.

10.              We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant and written arguments submitted on behalf of all the OPs as well as defence taken by the Ops and also perused the entire record placed on file.

11.              It is evident that the complainant was using mobile no.97798-99798 and opted the portability from Airtel to Idea with all the facilities like outgoing and incoming calls and other value added services being used by him, as was used from the previous service provider i.e. Airtel. But OP3 and Op4 did not activate the service after portability, because the formalities were not completed by the complainant and an amount of Rs.5417/- was found outstanding towards him, so the service of mobile number was suspended on 14.06.13. Thereafter the complainant neither approached the OP1 and OP2 nor OP3 and OP4 for the continuation of service of the mobile number. It was obligatory on the part of the complainant to adopt correct procedure as detailed by OPs, which in brief is as follows:-

“The procedure of seeking the number portable facility is that first the customer send a message (SMS) from its number, requesting for unique porting code (UPC), then the service provider give UPC code and intimate the subscriber through SMS and the subscriber retain such UPC in its record for the purpose of its verification of porting request for portability of service provider. The recipient operator on receipt of the porting request from the subscriber shall ask the subscriber to send a SMS to a specific short code of the donor operator from the subscriber’s mobile number which is sort to be ported, upon receipt of the SMS from the subscriber number, the donor operator shall send back the reply SMS containing UPC, upon receipt of UPC from donor operator, the subscriber shall incorporate the same porting request form and the recipient operator shall within 24 hour forward the mobile number, UPC and date on which the porting request is made to the concerned Mobile Number Portability Service Provider. After verifying the necessary eligibilities, the mobile number portability Service Provider shall forward the details of such request to the donor operator for seeking his clearance for such porting. On receipt of such detail, the donor operator within 24 hour respond to Mobile Number Portability Service Provider and if there is no objection on the part of donor operator upon receipt of communication, the mobile number Portability Service Provider shall allocate the corresponding location route number to the port number to its immediate effect.”

 

                   The complainant was to discharge his liability and clear all the dues, which he did not do. Hence complaint is not maintainable.

12.              Sequel to the above discussion, no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is established. Hence the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                    (Babita)                          (S.P.Garg)                      (R.L.Ahuja)

                   Member                           Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:18.02.2015 

Hardeep Singh