Haryana

Karnal

CC/322/2017

Vikram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Vikram Singh

13 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No.322 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 26.09.2017

                                                         Date of decision:13.02.2019

 

Vikram Singh son of Shri Rameshwar Nand resident of 33-A Chaman Garden, Karnal.

                                                                        …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1.Bharti Airtel Ltd. Plot no.41 & 42 Industrial Park, Sector-2 Growth Centre, Saha District Ambala Haryana, India.

2. Idea Cellular Ltd. A-68, Sector-64 Noida-201301.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.    

       

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik………Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present:  Shri Vikram Singh Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Akshat Sharma Advocate for OP no.1.

                Shri Rahul Bali Advocate for OP no.

                               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is using the postpaid mobile no.98969-90666 of Idea Company. Earlier the said mobile  number was of Airtel Company and lateron it was ported to Idea Company after paying the entire outstanding amount. Complainant using the said number without any interruption. The complainant is an Advocate in District Courts, Karnal and having large number of clientage connecting complainant through said number to enquire case proceedings. The complainant received all information of the cases on the said mobile number from the courts on which complainant cases are pending. After ported the same in Idea company complainant has paid two bills. Now on 12.08.2017 OP no.2 barred the said number voice calling, internet facility and message services of said number without giving any notice to complainant and when complainant enquire that matter then OP no.2 told that Rs.1088/- has been outstanding of Airtel Company, so due to this reason the said number has been barred by OP no.1. As per rules any telecom company without clearing all the dues cannot port the number to another company. Due to barred of service of complainant suffered huge loss in his business and also having mentally harassment. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 21.08.2017 in this regard but it all in vain. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merit, it is pleaded that as per record of the OP no.1, the mobile no.9896990666 was never active/working in the name of the complainant. It is further pleaded that before porting out from one operator to another, the subscriber has to clear his billed outstanding with the donor operator and the unbilled amount has to be cleared by the subscriber when the bill for the same is generated and in case the same is not done, the recipient operator has to bar the services. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written statement stating therein that the mobile no.9896990666 in question, a postpaid connection with the Donor Operator was ported in OP no.2 Network on 22.05.2017. AT the time of port out, the complainant may have made payment of charges to the donor operator as were due on date of pot out. However, the complainant was also under an obligation to make payment of unbilled charges as per the last bill for the number in question which was to be generated at a later date. It is further stated that the service of the del of the customer were firstly barred on 12.08.2017 and were permanently disconnected on 27.07.2017 due to non-payment of donor/previous operator. It is further stated that the services were barred under the MNP guidelines 2009. As per the intimation received from M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. there was an outstanding of Rs.1088.39/- against the complainant. The complainant was duly intimated in this regard through SMS to clear the outstanding of OP no.1 to enjoy the services of the OP no.2 but complainant failed to honour the request. It is further stated that enough was given to the complainant to confirm the status of payment made to OP no.1 so as to continue the service but complainant failed to show the proof of payment. Hence the services were disconnected in the ambit of MNP guidelines. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 17.10.2018.

5.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Tarun Khurana Ex.OP2/A and documents Ex.OP2/1 and Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence on 12.11.2018.

6.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.             The case of the complainant is that he is using a postpaid mobile no.9896990666 of the Idea company. Earlier the said mobile no.9896990666 was of Airtel company and lateron it was ported to Idea Company after paying the entire outstanding amount. After ported the same in Idea Company, the complainant has paid two bills. On 12.08.2017, OP no.2 barred the said number voice calling, internet facility and message service of said number without giving any notice to the complainant. When the complainant enquired about the said matter, then OP no.2 told that Rs.1088/-has been outstanding of the Airtel Company, so due to this reason the said number has been barred by OP no.1. The complainant an Advocate in District Court Karnal and have a large number of clientage connecting complainant through said number to enquire the case proceedings. As per the rule, any telecom company without clearing all the dues cannot port the number to another company. Thus, the act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service.

8.             On the other hand, the case of the OP no.1 is that, before porting from one operator to another, the subscriber has to clear his billed outstanding with the donor operator and the unbilled amount has to be cleared by the subscriber. When the bill of the same is generated, and in case the same is not done, the recipient’s operator has to bar the service. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed in his complaint.

9.             The case of the OP no.2 is that the mobile no.9896990666 in question a postpaid connection with the donor operator was ported in OP no.2 network on 22.05.2017. At the time of the port-out, the complainant may have made payment of charges to the donor operator as were due on date of port out. However, the complainant was also under an obligation to make payment of unbilled charges as per the last bill of the number in question which was to be generated at a later date. The services of the del of the customer were firstly barred on 12.08.2017 and were permanently disconnected on 27.07.2017 due to non-payment of the donor/previous operator. The services were barred under the MNP guidelines 2009. As per the intimation received from M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. there was an outstanding of Rs.1088.39/- against the complainant. The complainant was duly intimated in this regard. But complainant failed to show the proof of payment.

10.           Admittedly, the mobile number in question was ported from OP no.1 to OP no.2. After ported the same in OP no.2 company, complainant has paid two bills of OP no.2 company. On 12.08.2017, OP no.2 barred the said number’s services on the account of non-payment of Rs.1088/-, which has been outstanding of OP no.1 according to OP no.2. No document of detail of outstanding payment was produced by the OPs. As per the version of the complainant, according to rule, any telecom company without clearing all the outstanding dues, cannot port the number to another company. This was not rebutted neither by OP no.1 nor OP no.2. Thus, we are of the considered view that the act and conduct of the OP no.2 for barring the mobile number of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.

11.           Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to reconnect the said mobile number of the complainant, if the mobile number in question issued to another customer, then in the nearby series of the mobile, new number be issued to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5500/-to the complainant for mental agony, harassment and towards litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 13.02.2019

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                        Member                       Member