Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/534

Harish Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Chandan Rai Adv.

04 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 534 dated 20.11.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 04.01.2023.

 

Harish Rai Dhanda son of Sh. Kulbhushan Rai, resident of The Retreat, Malkiat Avenue, Barewal, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                  ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Idea Cellular Ltd., C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-VII, Mohali (SAS Nagar)-160055, Punjab through its Manager/competent person.

…..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Chandan Rai, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the complainant being a regular postpaid mobile customer of the opposite party under the assigned No.98141-86702 had been availing the services of the opposite parties since last so many years. The complainant was not satisfied from the services of the opposite party who was committing very poor connectivity while roaming and even all other facilities were not competitive as other players in the business. So the complainant decided to port his mobile number from Idea to BSNL and as such, for this purpose, on 27.08.2019, the complainant made a proper request for porting the said number and immediately on the next date i.e. on 28.08.2019, the complainant deposited all the arrears plus sufficient advance amount. On 31.08.2019, to the utter shock of the complainant he received a text message on his telephone number that the request for porting has been rejected “due to outstanding payments”. Further the complainant has stated that he has not used this telephone connection since long because of poor facilities and he had paid all the outstanding amounts before making the porting request. From 27.08.2019, there had been telephonic conversation between the complainant and the representative of the opposite party in order to resolve the issue of porting but the same could not be resolved which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is suffering a lot of inconvenience on the score that the opposite party service provider has even terminated incoming and outgoing calling and messaging services on the number 9814186702 due to which the complainant is unable to use internet banking services, online services of al bank accounts, Aadhar related services and he is also unable to file his Income Tax Return, all these services require an OTP sent to his registered number. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.12.2019 calling upon the opposite party to port his number and to pay the damages to the tune of Rs.25,000/- but it did not evoke a positive response from the opposite party. Hence this complaint whereby direction has been sought to opposite party to port the mobile number immediately and to make the payment of damages for not porting the number in the first place and causing mental pain and agony and also to pay litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement. In the written statement, the opposite party assailed the complaint on the ground of its maintainability and non-joinder of BSNL as party. Also the opposite party took preliminary objections to the effect that the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial piece of Legislation and the same should not be used by the complainant as mechanism to launch claims in the hope of striking an illegal windfall. The opposite party also termed the complaint to be false and frivolous and has been filed just to injure the interest and reputation of the opposite party and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the opposite party has averred that the complainant was a customer of the opposite party and had availed postpaid mobile cell phone connection under the number 9814186702 but due to non-payment of the outstanding dues of the said number, it was permanently disconnected on 23.12.2019. The opposite party further averred that as per Regulation 6(b) of the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009 which pertains to the “Eligibility Criterion for making a porting request” the complainant was not eligible to make a request for porting his mobile number on 27.08.2019. The said regulation is reproduced as under:-

“Every subscriber to make a request for porting his mobile number provided there are no outstanding payments due to the Donor Operator by way of pending bills or bills, as the case may be, issued as per the normal billing cycle but before the date of application for porting.”

As per the said regulations, the opposite party could reject the request for porting of a mobile number if there were outstanding payments from the subscriber by way of pending bill. It is not in dispute that the bill dated 16.08.2019 for Rs.512.12 was outstanding as on 27.08.2019 when the complainant had made a request for porting out from his mobile number. The opposite party has further submitted that the complainant made a payment qua the said bill on 28.08.2019. Therefore, the porting request was rejected due to the outstanding dues and as per the regulations. The complainant had discharged his liability only for the bill cycle ending on 15.08.2019. Thereafter, the complainant continued to be a subscriber of the said number and the bills were generated accordingly. However, the opposite party admitted the termination of incoming and outgoing and messaging services on the number 9814186702.  The current outstanding on the said number is Rs.388.64. The opposite party further submitted that as per Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules which is reproduced as under:-

“Default of payment:- If, on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules, of bills for charges in respect of calls (Local and Trunk) of the phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are not duly paid by him, any telephone or telephones or the telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice….”

Due to failure on the part of the complainant to make the payment, the opposite party disconnected the number after giving enough opportunities to the complainant to clear the outstanding dues. The opposite party has denied that there is any deficiency of service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. C1/A in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is copy of transaction details from 15.08.2019 to 16.09.2019,  Ex. C2 is the copy of snapshot of message, Ex. C3 is legal notice dated 23.10.2019, Ex. C4 is the postal receipt and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party submitted affidavit Ex. OP1/A of Sh. Manoj Madan, Authorized Signatory of the opposite party along with documents Ann. OP1 copy of snapshot showing the status of connection “PD”, Ann. OP2 is the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulation, 2009, Ann. OP3 is the copy of bill dated 16.08.2019, Ann. OP4 is copy of another bill dated 16.09.2019, Ann. OP5 is the copy of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                The uncontroverted facts which emerges from the pleadings and the evidence on record are that the complainant was a customer of the opposite party having an activated post paid connection bearing mobile No.9814186702. On 27.08.2019, the complainant had made a request for porting out of his mobile number to BSNL and further on 28.08.2019, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.550/- against the outstanding bill dated 16.08.2019 for Rs.512.12. However, the porting request of the complainant was declined. Further the subsequent bills dated 16.09.2019, 16.10.2019, 16.11.2019, 16.12.2019 and 16.01.2020 were generated by the opposite party. During this period, on 23.12.2019, the mobile phone of the complainant was permanently disconnected.

7.                Now the question arises for consideration that whether the declining of request of the portability of the complainant and subsequent permanent disconnection affected by the opposite party was justified?

8.                The complainant has attached Ex. C1, the extract of transaction details showing the payment of Rs.550/- on 28.08.2019 to the opposite party. On the other hand, the opposite party has attached various bills as Annexure R3, details of which are given hereunder:-

Sr. No.	Date of Bill	Duration	Amount
1.	16.08.2019	16.07.2019 to 15.08.2019	Rs.512.12
2.	16.09.2019	16.08.2019 to 15.09.2019	Rs.474.24
3.	16.10.2019	16.09.2019 to 15.10.2019	Rs.986.36
4.	16.11.2019	16.10.2019 to 15.11.2019	Rs.1224.12
5.	16.10.2019	16.11.2019 to 15.12.2019	Rs.1224.12
6.	16.01.2020	16.12.2019 to 15.11.2020	Rs.388.64

 

9.                The counsel for the opposite party has referred to the Regulation 6(b) of the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009 and has contended that the complainant was not eligible to make a request for porting his mobile number as on 27.08.2019 there were outstanding payments of the pending bills. The counsel for the opposite party has further contended that the excess payment made by the complainant was not sufficient to discharge the liability.

10.              On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant has contended that the payments made by the complainant in advance shows his bonafide and he never intended to make any default. Perusal of the bills and payment shows that there is an increase of payable outstanding amounts since the issuance of the bill dated 16.09.2019 but after the issuance of another three bills in an increasing order, suddenly on 16.01.2020 a reducing bill of Rs.388.64 has been shown. Admittedly, during this period, the complainant did not make any payment and his mobile was permanently disconnected on 23.12.2019. It is evident that review of the account of the complainant was made subsequent to permanent disconnection which has resulted in drastic reduction of an amount of Rs.388.64. The said overall exercise of reviewing could have been conducted by the opposite party at the time when the request for a porting was made. It was well within the competence of the opposite party to issue a supplementary bill to the complainant asking him to pay in a given time so to accept his request for porting out. Obviously, in the age of competition no telecom service provider wants to lose the base of his customer by accepting request for porting. Certainly, it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It may be noticed that the complaint was presented before this Commission on 20.11.2019 and after its admission on 29.11.2019, notice was issued to the opposite party for 13.12.2019 and again for 16.01.2020. Finally on 13.02.2020, the opposite party had put in its appearance through counsel. However, the permanent disconnection was effected on 23.12.2019 i.e. during the pendency of the present complaint. So considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the telephone connection with original assigned No.9814186702 is liable to be restored by the opposite party.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite party to restore the telephone connection No.9814186702 at their own cost subject to furnishing of requisite documents by the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite party will issue a new sim with the same cell number to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. The opposite party shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                         Member                        President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:04.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Harish Rai Dhanda Vs Idea Celluar                                 CC/19/534

Present:       Sh. Chandan Rai, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite party to restore the telephone connection No.9814186702 at their own cost subject to furnishing of requisite documents by the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite party will issue a new sim with the same cell number to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. The opposite party shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                         Member                        President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:04.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.