Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/587/2015

Chander Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	587 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	1.9.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	14.6.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Chander Mohan #3373, Sector 15D, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. Idea Cellular Ltd. SCO 495/496, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

 

2. Tata Docomo, SCO 427/428, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh circle office C-125, Industrial area, Phase-8, Mohali Punjab.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE: 

 

DR. MANJIT SINGH                                 PRESIDENT

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA          MEMBER

 

 

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Rameet Bakshi, Adv.
For OP No.2	:	Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Adv.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                In nutshell the grouse of the complainant is that he was using mobile NO.8872833373 of Opposite Party No.1 for the last three year. According to him on 13^th July 2015 when his son gifted him smart phone and he put a new micro  sim card for number 8872833373  in the smart phone the same was activated at about 9 p.m. on 13.7.2015. On 15.7.2015 the complainant received a message that your internet charges are Rs.250/- or so. The complainant called helpline number of the company and asked why they are charging this amount, when he is not using internet.  The complainant was told that this is a default message and charges would be waived off.  In the meanwhile the complainant applied for an internet plan with Tata Docomo on 15.7.2015, which was activated at 11.40 a.m. on 16.7.2015 (Annexure F) and he started using the said plan. It is alleged that  the Op No.1 again on 18.7.2015 sent a message showing internet charges as Rs.950/-  The complainant immediately rushed to the Sector 35, Chandigarh office of Opposite Party No.1 and showed them the message.  They again assured the complainant that the said charges would be waived off in the bill and the message is default message.  But to the utter shock of the complainant he received a bill Annexure A wherein he was charged Rs.949.12/- plus taxes for using internet data.  The complainant took the matter with Opposite Party No.1 but nothing was done.  It  has been  alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 started the internet service on his mobile number in question without his consent.   Ultimately he not satisfied with the services of Opposite Party No.1 Opted to port out his number to another service provider.  Accordingly the complainant cleared all the dues of Opposite Party No.1 vide  receipt Annexure B and sent a SMS to 1900-Port 8872833373 and the complainant received a unique  porting code which he filled in with other information in the request form of TATA Docomo OP No2.  It is alleged that despite making all the dues cleared Opposite Party No.1 rejected his request for porting the number, which he received through a message from 1901 that porting request for mobile number 8872833373 has been rejected by your service provider due to outstanding payments not cleared.   Subsequently on 7.8.2015 the complainant received a message Annexure E to the effect that his port out request has been registered and would be actioned by 44 hours  but nothing was done by Opposite Party No.1. Even Opposite Party No.2 did no make any efforts to port the number of the complainant. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.           Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Parties, seeking their version of the case
3.           The OP No.1 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant was well aware about the fact that internet facility was active on his add-on number as on 7.3.2012. The customer/complainant had requested the answering Opposite Party No.1 to deactivate a GPRs pack @60-500mb” vide a customer request form.  The complainant only got deactivated a pack and not the GPRs facility on his mobile number.  It has been pleaded that the complainant was never charged for any services which were not used by him.  It has been further pleaded that the complainant requested for porting out the add on number on 6.8.2015 at 14.55:57 hours by sending a message at 1900. It is pertinent to mention here that since the customer made the payment on 6.8.2015 at 3.30 pm. the said porting out request was rejected as the payment had not been posted in his account.  The complainant on 10.8.2015 made call to the customer care of the answering Opposite Party. The customer care representative informed him that since the earlier request for mobile number portability had been rejected, he needed to make another request for porting out to the desired operator.  But the complainant instead of doing so the complainant filed the instant complaint. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           Opposite Party No.2  in its reply stated that the complaint is not maintainable against it as no cause of action has arisen to the complainant against it. It has been asserted that the complainant applied for mobile number portability facility for porting his del from idea to tata and such request was rejected by the donor operator i.e. m/s idea cellular Ltd. owing to non-payment of the dues payable by the complainant.   It has been further pleaded that the process of mobile number portability is regulated and conducted by an agency namely MNPSP i.e. mobile number portability service provider governed by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India which acts as mediator between the telecom operators while processing the portability of the connection. Notably transaction of MNP is allowed by such agency in case any outstanding is due and payable to the current operator before submitting UPC code to the opted/donee operator.   Rest of the allegations  have been denied being wrong.

 

5.           The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

6.           Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

7.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

 

8.           The grievance of the complainant is two fold. First  grievance is regarding charging for the use of GPRS by Opposite Party No.1 whereas he did not opt for/use the internet and GPRS facility. Secondly in spite of the fact that the complainant cleared the pending due amount, the Opposite Party No.1, did not clear the portability request of the complainant.

 

9.           Regarding first grievance we have perused
   Annexure OP-1/2 placed on record by Opposite Party No.1 wherein the complainant had requested on 7.3.2012, for deactivation of GPRS Pack@60 for 500 MB. The request was for the deactivation for the pack only and not the deactivation of the GPRS service.  The assertion of the complainant that he has not used the GPRS/internet facility does not hold good as it is quite apparent from Annexure-A and OP-1/5 and Opposite Party-1/6 placed on record that he was charged for using internet services of the Opposite Party No.1. All that makes it clear that the Opposite Party No.1 has rightfully charged for the usage of GPRS/internet.

 

10.           As far as the second issue of rejection of portability request of the complainant is concerned, as per the Opposite Party No.1 the complainant cleared his dues on 6.8.2015 at 3.30 p.m. whereas he made request for porting out at 14:55:57 hours on the same day hence his porting out request was rejected as the payment was not posted in his account.  It has been fairly admitted by Opposite Party No.1 that  complainant received a message from Idea Cellular Ltd. on 7.8.2015 that his port out request has been registered and would be actioned by 44 hours. But it is pleaded that the said message is an automated service message which customer gets after issuance of fresh port out request. However, on 7.8.2015 itself due to pending payment system updation his port request was rejected as the complainant paid outstanding dues at channel partner franchise location and fresh port out request was raised in 24 hours, even the customer was duly informed to raise fresh request after at least one working day. The plea of Opposite Party No.1 is that on 10.8.2015 at the customer care of the Opposite Party No.1 the customer care  representative  through the communicated the complainant that since the earlier request  for portability had been rejected he needed to make another request for porting out to the desired operator.  But the complainant instead of doing so filed the instant complaint.  We agree with this contention of Opposite Party No.1 as its version is well supported with Annexure  Opposite Party-1/4 wherefrom it is evident that complainant was communicated on 10.8.2015 and he was  asked to give again request for portability but the complainant did not  do so and chose to approach this Forum.  In our opinion when the complainant was given an opportunity by Opposite Party No.1 to sort out his grievance then he should have availed the same rather than unnecessary dragging it in litigation. Had the case been otherwise he could definitely  have a good case but the complainant without availing the opportunity given by Op No.1 straightaway filed the instant complainant, which in our view is not feasible. Even otherwise the complainant completely failed to prove on record that he had applied for portability after clearing his pending dues with Opposite Party No.1 because there is no mention of time on the receipt which could prove that the complainant had applied for portability after clearing the dues. As such it is the complainant’s own fault that he applied for portability without clearing the pending dues. Even if it is presumed that after clearing his account, complainant made a request for portability, it was required that complainant should wait for a day, after clearing his account  and make the request for portability, as Opposite Party would have sufficient time  to adjust the payment in the account of complainant. For the fault of complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 cannot be held liable particularly who despite his fault, gave him an opportunity to port out his number to other operator.  Hence we find no merit in this complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11.

12.           The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced                                                                                        sd/-

14.6.2016                                                         (DR. MANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER