JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

        The complainant was using a mobile connection No. 9916383919 issued to him by Vodafone.  He claims to have received a telephone call, offering better tariff plan to him if he shifted from Vodafone to Airtel.  The complainant therefore, shared his documents with an executive of the Airtel and was issued a post-paid SIM card bearing No.8991000900614428103U.  He was also told that his mobile No. 9916383919 would be ported from Vodafone to Airtel within seven days.  The complainant cleared the outstanding dues of the Vodafone against the connection Vodafone had provided to him and received a SIM card from Airtel on 24.01.2018.  On 26.01.2018, he was informed that the validation of his documents had been completed and sent to Vodafone.  On 31.1.2018, he was informed that his porting request had been validated by Vodafone and the number would be ported into Airtel on the same day.  He was also instructed to call 59059 to verify his details once his mobile displayed ‘no network’.

2.     The case of the complainant is that the Vodafone network dropped from his mobile phone on 31.1.2018, but when he inserted the Airtel SIM card, the network could not be found despite his repeatedly restarting the mobile phone.  He visited the Airtel store on the next day and another SIM was issued to him, while informing him that the previous SIM card issued to him had wrong SIM number and that actual SIM No. was 8991000900566320159U.  Thereafter, yet another SIM card bearing No.8991000901207695181U was issued to him.  He again visited the Airtel store and explained his problem to them.  They assured to get the card activated within 48 hours and finally issued another SIM card to him bearing No.8991000900033955140U.  However, SIM also could not get activated despite repeated efforts made by the complainant.  Thereafter, he was contacted by an Airtel executive, asked him to collect SIM card from another Airtel Store by applying for a duplicate SIM.  The complainant however, insisted on the duplicate SIM being delivered at his place.

3.     The case of the complainant is that none of the SIM cards provided to him could be activated despite several efforts made by him.  On 7.2.2018, he was informed by the Nodal Officer of Airtel that his SIM was active.  When he contacted the Customer Care of Airtel, he was informed that the SIM was activated on 05.2.2018.  The complainant alleges that the SIM had been activated somewhere-else.  Eventually he was informed that the outgoing service on his mobile number had been temporarily restricted effective from 8.2.2018 on his request and he could obtain a new SIM by visiting Airtel store with his Aadhaar card etc.  Thus, the SIM, according to the complainant, was activated without his consent.  He declined to apply for a duplicate SIM as was suggested to him Airtel.  This is also his case that when he searched on the Internet for the Airtel executive, who had come to him, he found a profile with objectionable links.

4.     Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party in rendering services to him, the complainant is before this Commission with the following prayers:

• Direct the opposite party to give clarification about how wrong sim card was issued.When every process was completed through e-kyc.

• Direct the opposite party to give clarification about the itemized details about the date and time of activation of sim card for mobile number 9916383919.

• Direct the opposite party to give clarification about the remarks passed on consumer helpline website for docket number 596551 and 644622.

• Direct the opposite party to give the details of the request made by the complainant for restricting the services for mobile number 9916383919.

• Direct the opposite party to give clarification about the bill for the period of 23.1.2018 to 22.2.2018.

• Direct the opposite party to issue the new sim card for my number 9916383919 at no extra cost.With an acceptance letter for taking the responsibility for the activities carried out through my number 9916383919 from the date of porting to the date of activation of new sim card.

• Pay the compensation of Rupees 30 crores (since 30 crores is the budget of my film I need the same excluding tax) for the damages caused to the complainant.

• Pay the compensation of Rupees 20 crores as Punitive Damages for delivering hazardous service.

• To pay litigation charges incurred.

5.     I have heard the complainant, who appeared in person.  In my view, the compensation claimed by the complainant for the deficiencies attributed to the opposite party is grossly inflated, vastly exaggerated and without any rational, basis or justification.  Even if the opposite party was deficient in rendering services to him, to the extent alleged in the complaint, a compensation of Rs. 50 crores, including punitive damages amounting to Rs.20 crores can, by no logic of reasoning be said to be worth examination.  No actual monetary loss, except the cost of the SIM card and other charges has been sustained by the complainant on account of the deficiencies imputed to the opposite party.  Though, a reasonable compensation can always be claimed for the defects and deficiencies in the services rendered to a consumer, the compensation claimed by the consumer must be fair and rational relatable to the nature and extent of the deficiency in the service, and not an amount, which, on the very face of it appears to be unworthy of a serious consideration.  Even if the complainant could not use mobile no. 9916383919, on account of the opposite party having not activated the SIM card or having activated it at a wrong place, nothing prevented him from obtaining another mobile connection from any other service provider and convey his new mobile phone number to his contacts.  But, a claim for grant of compensation to the extent of Rs.50 crores, in my opinion, does not deserve even a serious consideration.

6.     The complaint is therefore, dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file a fresh consumer complaint before an appropriate Consumer Forum, claiming a fair and reasonable compensation relatable to and having a direct nexus with the nature and extent of the deficiencies imputed to the opposite party and the loss, agony and harassment suffered by him, on account of the alleged defects and deficiencies.