CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/493/13

          Date of Institution:-   25.09.2013

          Order Reserved on:- 30.04.2024

                   Date of Decision:-      01.05.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

PramodTyagi

Son of ShriCharan Singh Tyagi

Resident of H. No.-122, Gali No.4,

Phase-9, Shiv Vihar,

Delhi – 110094

Through: “The Social Spirits”

H.O: D-23 LGF JangpuraExtn. Delhi

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

The Managing Director

BhartiAirtelLmt.,

Bharti Crescent,

1, Nelson Mandela Road

VasantKunj, Phase-2, New Delhi

.…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thatcomplainant is the represented by the society under the name “The Social Spirits”. He has been authorized by the society to file this complaint. In March, 2013 one Rakesh with mobile number 9891073478, Joshi with mobile number 9711006464, AmitSaini with mobile number 9555924568 and Ankit with mobile number 9711001376, representative of the OP, contacted the complainant that he can port his postpaid mobile number 9718135765 from idea cellular to Airtel. He gave photocopy of DL and Rs.1000/- as security deposit to the representative. One sim card bearing number 8991101202295575031H-2 was given to him and told him about the procedure and assured that sim card will start working within few hours of blocking the idea service. His idea sim card stopped working from the midnight of 29.03.2013. The Airtelsim card did not start after midnight. He contacted Airtel customer care service center but in vain. A legal notice dated 03.04.2013 was given to the OP but without any result. Hence, this complaint.
2. The OP has filed the written statement to the effect that OP has executed Power of Attorney dated 01.012.2015 in favour of Amit Bhatia who will represent the OP.The complainant has concealed the materials facts from the forum. It is denied for the want of knowledge that four persons, representative of OP, have contacted the complainant to port his postpaid mobile number from idea cellular to Airtelor that any security deposit was given to them. The Department of Telecom vide its circular dated 09.08.2012 has issued the instructions regarding tele verification of subscribers before activating the sim card failing which penalty of Rs.50,000/- will be imposed. A customer acquisition form has to be filled by the customer along with identity proof and thereafter sim card is issued which has to be duly verified by the subscriber before its activation. The allegations of the complainant are false and frivolous.
3. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
4. The complainanthas filed his own affidavit in evidence and corroborated the version of complaint.
5. The OP has filed the affidavit of Sh. Amit Bhatia in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents OP Ex.OPW1 to 3.
6. We have heardthe Ld. Counsel for the OP as no one has turned up on behalf of the complainant to address the arguments.
7. It is clear from the material on record that complainant was using postpaid mobile number 9718135765. The idea cellular was the service provider. The complainant ported his number from idea cellular to Airtel allegedly on the request of the representativesof the OP who have issued sim card bearing no.8991101202295575031H-2. The idea sim card stopped working from the midnight of 29.03.2013 but sim card provided to the complainant by the representative of the OP was not activated after midnight which led to the filing of this complaint.
8. The plea of the OP is that there is tele verification of the subscriber before the activation of the number and this is in accordance with the instructions Annexure-A issued by Department of Tele-Communication.
9. The DoT circular dated 09.08.2012 has been issued in accordance with clause 41.14 of license agreement. Para 3 (VI) of these instructions mandates tele verification of the subscriber failing which penalty of Rs.50,000/- will be levied in accordance with clause 3 (vii) of the instruction.
10. It is clear from clause 3 (vi) of the instruction that subscriber is not able to make any call except to the operator unless there is tele verification. The incoming call will remain barred without tele verification.The combined reading of clauses 3 (vi) and (vii) shows that the purpose of these clauses is clearly that before a sim is sold, CAF must be filled and before this sim is activated and the details filled in CAF must be verified telephonically by subscriber. The complainant has not gone for the tele verification of the sim card. The tele verification is required before the activation of sim card. The OP cannot be held liable in case there is no tele verification by the subscriber. The complainant has not complied with the circular Annexure-A so no fault or deficiency of service can be find with the OP in case sim card was not activated. Support is drawn from Petition No.197/2013 titled as Vodafone Space Tell Ltd. vs Union of India decided on 2^nd December 2015 by Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.
11. In view of the above stated discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint of the complainant and accordingly the complaint of the complainant is dismissed without any order as to the cost.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 01.05.2024.