DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/228 of 6.10.2015

                                      Decided on:        9.6.2016

Vicky Jindal S/o Sh.Sat Paul Jindal, resident of H.No.78, Sewak Colony, Patiala-147001.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.      The Managing Director of Bharti Airtel Ltd., # Registered Office at Aravli Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070.

2.      The Managing Director / Director of Bharti Airtel Ltd., office at Rajiv Gandhi, Chandigarh Technology, I.T.Park, Chandigarh-160101.

3.      The Collection Head/Incharge of Airtel ( Mobile Services) # Leela Bhawan Chowk, Near KFC Restaurant, Patiala-147001.

4.      Anandpreet Sandhu Zonal Manager of Bharti Airtel Ltd., having office at Leela Bhawan Chowk, Near KFC Restaurant, Patiala.

5.      Sarabjeet Walia Incharge of Bharti Airtel Ltd., having Office at Leela Bhawan Chowk, Near KFC Restaurant , Patiala.

                                                                                       …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                       Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member                                     

Present:

For the complainant:   Sh.Parvinder Singla, Advocate

For Ops No.1&2:         Sh.K.S.Sidhu,Advocate

For Op No.5:                Exparte.                                         

                                         ORDER

A.P.S.Rajput, PRESIDENT

1. Complainant Vicky Jindal s/o Sh.Sat Paul Jindal, resident of H.No.78, Sewak Colony, Patiala has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the Ops) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( for short the Act) .The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. It is the case of the complainant that he being the subscriber of Vodafone connection having Mobile Phone No.9501400002 had regularly paid the rental charges and usage charges of the mobile phone for the period from 15.4.2014 to 20.8.2015. It is averred that on 13.8.2015, the complainant made a request to Ops no.3 & 5 for the portability of his mobile phone i.e. from Vodafone to Airtel  which was to be activated after porting/transfer up till 20.8.2015 but the same was done on 25.8.2015 . It is further averred that in the bill for the period from 25.8.2015 to 10.9.2015, an amount  of Rs.50,000/-was shown to be paid by the complainant plus tax of Rs.7000/- as VANITY NRCA3. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 23.9.2015 upon the Ops.It is averred  in the complaint that as per Government Policy regarding portability of mobile services it is consumer/customer’s right to get/avail the services of any mobile company by getting one’s mobile number transfer from one company to another company without the change of mobile number i.e. with the same number. It is further averred in the complaint that on 2.10.2015, the complainant received an e-mail at 10.00AM with the direction to pay an amount of Rs.57,000.85 towards mobile phone No.9501400002 due for 30 September,2015. Again on 2.10.2015, at about 1.09P.M., the complainant  received  a message regarding non-payment and advised to pay the due amount immediately for continued services. The complainant requested so many times to the Ops to correct the error in the detail charges of bill as well as in the bill pertaining to mobile phone No.95014 00002 by deleting the amount of Rs.57000/- but to no effect and ultimately on 3.10.2015, the ops flatly refused to do the needful. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the Ops to correct the error in the detail charges of bill as well as in the bill pertaining to mobile phone No.95014-00002 by deleting the amount of Rs.57000.85 and not to bar the services of the said mobile number, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental torture, agony and inconvenience and Rs.1500/- as litigation expenses.
3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against Ops no.1,2 and 5 only. Ops No.1&2 appeared through their counsel and filed the written version while Op no.5 despite service failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
4. In the written statement filed by Ops no.1&2, preliminary objection has been taken that  this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. On merits it is submitted that it is the duty of the subscriber of the connection to raise a request by way of sending SMS to the operator with whom the connection is running for porting the connection. It is further submitted that the bills are generated as per the usage made by the subscriber and the billing system of the Ops is  computerized. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit, Ex.C1 receipt dated 7.5.2014, Ex.C2 copy of bill dated 21.8.2015, Ex.C3 copy of receipt, Ex.C4, copy of bill dated 21.8.2015, Ex.C5, copy of bill dated 12.9.2015,Ex.C6 copy of payment receipt, Ex.C7 copy of SMS regarding payment of bill, Ex.C8copy of e-mail dated 2.10.2015, Ex.C9 copy of notice dated 8.10.2015, Ex.C10 copy of order dated 7.10.2015, Ex.C11 copy of e-mail dated  15.10.2015, Ex.C12 copy of bill dated 12.10.2015, Ex.C13 copy of e-mail dated 30 October,2015, Ex.C14 copy of receipt, Ex.C15 copy of bill dated 12.11.2015, Ex.C16,copy of e-mail dated 14.11.2015, Ex.C17, copy of receipt, Ex.C18 copy of bill dated 12.12.2015, Ex.C19 copy of payment receipt, Ex.C20 copy of bill dated 12.1.2016, Ex.C21 copy of legal notice dtd.23.9.2015, Ex.C22, copy of postal receipt, Ex.C23 copy of courier receipt and his counsel closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the Op no.1 & 2  despite availing ample opportunities, failed to produce any  evidence and the evidence of the Ops was closed by the order of this Forum.
7. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present complaint is, that after portability of mobile number purchased from Vodafone to Airtel, the OPs again started demanding a sum of Rs.57000.85/- for the VIP no.,already purchased from the Vodafone by the complainant. He stated that it is evident from the bills and emails placed on record that the Ops had been sending contradictory bills, sometime adjusting the dispute amounts and thereafter again demanding the same. The ld. counsel pleaded that it is established from the act and conduct of the OPs, that they have indulged in unfair trade practice by raising the illegal demands, which is against portability norms issued by the Government of India and prayed for compensation on account of mental agony.
8. On the other hand the ld. counsel for the OP no.1 & 2 has objected to the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant.He stated that  the bills were generated as per the usage made by the complainant and the billing system of the Ops is  computerized.The ld. counsel pleaded that no amount as alleged by the complainant had been charged and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special cost.
9. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find force in the contentions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. It is established from the bill issued by Vodafone i.e Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-4, that before portability to Airtel the complainant had been using the same no., on Vodafone network.It is also evident from the bill dated 12.10.2015 issued by Airtel i.e Ex.C-5(colly) that the OPs had imposed “one time charges; vanity nrc a3” amounting to Rs.50,000/- and Taxes amounting to Rs.7000/-,thereafter vide email dated 02.10.2015 i.e Ex.C-8 had raised the dues amounting to Rs.57,000/-.It is also established from the bills i.e Ex.C-12 & Ex.C-15, that during the pendency of the present complaint, the OPs finally adjusted the illegal demands. In our opinion the complainant had to undergo immense mental agony due to the act and conduct of the OP no.1 &2 due to the illegal demands.
10. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that the OP no. 1 &2 had imposed and raised illegal demand of dues amounting to Rs.57,000/- towards the complainant and thereby indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence we direct the OP no. 1 &2  not to raise the illegal demand of Rs.57,000/- towards the complainant in future .We also direct the OP no. 1&2 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant alongwith litigation cost of Rs.3500/-.
11. The OP no. 1 and 2 are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, in case the OPs fails to comply with this order the OPs shall also be held liable to pay 9 % p.a interest till its realization. The present complaint is hereby accepted.  

12.     The arguments on the complaint were heard on  2.6.2016  and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room

Pronounced

Dated:9.6 .2016

                                       Neelam Gupta                        A.P.S.Rajput

                             Member                                  President