Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/250/2016

Jagjeet Singh Prop. of M/s Shami Electrical - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDEA Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Parvesh Bhargava

07 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No. 250 of 2016

                                                                                    Date of institution: 22.07.2016       

                                                                                    Date of decision: 07.06.2017

Jagjeet Singh aged about 42 years, Prop. of M/s Shami Electrical, near Waryam Singh Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

…Complainant.

                                                            Versus

1. IDEA Communication, 2475, Club road Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its authorized dealer.
2. IDEA Cellular Ltd. Circle Haryana, 5^th Floor, Tower A, Panchkula IT Park, Plot No.1 Technology Park, Sector 22, Panchkula, through its concerned officer.
3. Appellate Officer Desk Idea Cellular Ltd., Circle Haryana, 5^th Floor, Tower A Panchkula IT Park, Plot No.1, Technology Park, Sector 22, Panchkula through its concerned officer.

 

                                                                                                          …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND……………… MEMBER

 

Present:            Shri Parvesh Bhargav, Advocate for complainant.

                          OP No.1 already ex parte vide order dated 07.09.2016.

Shri Ramneek Sharma, Advocate for OP No.2 and 3.

 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant took the corporate cellular connection from the OP No.2 thought responded No.1 and is using the four numbers 9355322425, 9017600003, 9017575802 and 9813394243. In January 2016, the complainant observed the deficiency in services of the

OPs. So complainant repeatedly requested the OP to remove the grievance of the complainant but OPs did not take any heed for this. The complainant has left no other alternative to change the service provider. So the complainant as per rule invoked the proceeding to PORT these connections to another service provider. Despite sending request by message or email on dated 05.02.2016 for porting the said connections, the OPs did not release the connection for port of the complainant. However, as per TRAI Rules the OPs were incumbent to release the numbers immediately on receipt of message or e-mail from the customer. The complainant has served a legal notice dated 04.06.2010 upon the OPs and the same has duly been received by them but they neither do the needful nor replied the said notice. In this way, the OPs have committed violation of TRAI Rules, for which the OP are liable to be penalize due to negligence in services to complainant being service provider, the complainant is suffering huge pecuniary losses as well as lose of business, due to the deficiency in providing services to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,50,000/- from the OPs as compensation on account of deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint and with the request to direct the OPs to release the above said connection numbers of the complainant at the earliest.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.2 and 3 appeared and filed their written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; the matter, being pertaining to and arising out of MNP i.e. Mobile Number Portability is Governed by the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations 2009 issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and as per rules any subscriber intending to port into network of other telecom operator is inter alia required to (a) Fill up Customer Application Form with Unique Porting Code mentioned on it (b) Provide legible proof of identity and address (c ) Pay off all dues of previous donor operator. After completing the formalities every subscriber desires of porting his mobile number shall make a request in writing to the concerned recipient operator in such format as may be specified by such recipient operator; complainant is estopped from his own act and conduct in filing the present complaint and on merit it has been admitted that complainant was subscriber of mobile No. 9355322425 which was operated out of network of the OPs No.2 & 3 on 29.02.2016 and is currently using the services of mobile numbers 9017600003, 9017575802 & 9813394243 of the OPs No.2 & 3 Company. It has been further mentioned that as per company record the MNP request for the below mentioned numbers were raised by the complainant but the same was rejected as the documents submitted by the complainant i.e. Authorization letter were not as per the requirement and there was mismatch of the signature on one instance and the details of the operator were not mentioned as per requirement. The details of port out are hereby reproduced as under:

 

Mobile Number	UPC request received	Port out request received	Action taken.
9355322425	16-FB-2016(CIH21383)	24-Fb-2016	Ported out on 29.02.2016
9813394243	2-MR-2016(CIH66146)	Not received	Request not received from other operator.
9017600003	29-Apr & 21-June-2016 (CIH99298 & CIH65267	7-May,12-May & 23-June-2016	Port out request rejected under company name (allotted to) mismatch in letter.
9017575802	29-Apr &21-June-2016 (CIH28929 & CIH89729	7-May,12May & 23-June-2016	Port out request rejected under company name (allotted to) mismatch in letter.

 

            Further, it has been mentioned that OPs No.2 & 3 issued a formal reply to the complainant through his advocate Mr. Rajeev Kautish through registered post and requested him to advise the complainant to issue the appropriate letter but the complainant failed to do so, so, the numbers could not be operated out. The Ops No.2 & 3 are ready to port out the numbers if the complainant raise the proper request once again and submitted the required documents as per company requirement. Rest contents of the complaint were denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA and documents as Annexure C-1 to C-11  and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     Learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Tarun Khurana, Assistant Manager, Legal Idea Cellular Ltd. as Annexure R2/A and documents such as Photo copy of reply of legal notice dated 10.06.2016 as Annexure R2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops No.2 & 3.   

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that the complainant took four (4) Corporate Cellular connections from the Ops Company i.e. Idea Cellular company but in the month of January, 2016 the complainant observed the deficiency in service on the part of OPs, so, the complainant as per company rule invoke the proceeding to port these connections to another service provider and made so many requests through message and email Annexure C-3 to C-8 but the OPs did not take any heed to the genuine request of the complainant to release the port facility in regard to the cellular connections.  Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the copy of e-mails Annexure C-3 to C-8 and copy of legal notice Annexure C-9 and argued that despite these message of e-mails the OPs Company has failed to release the cellular connections which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 argued at length that as per company records in the month of February, 2016 the complainant opted for mobile number portability MNP only for mobile No. 9355322425 and the same was ported out and the same was disconnected from the network of M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. on 24.02.2016. Learned counsel for the Ops further argued that again complainant requested for port of mobile No. 9017600003 and 9017575802 on 07.05.2016 and 12.06.2016 respectively and the same were rejected as the authorization letter issued by the complainant was capturing his own name instead of company name to which he wanted to port out and the same was not in order as per guidelines. Further, the another 4^th mobile number 9813394243 could not be operated out as the complainant has only generated the UPC code but the OPs No.2 & 3 have not received any request from the recipient operator. Learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 further argued that fault lies with the complainant himself as he did not submit the request properly in the name of company so, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Learned counsel for the Ops draw our attention towards the reply sent to the legal notice Annexure R-2/1 and argued that even in this reply the counsel for the complainant was also requested to inform the complainant to provide all the formalities as per the MNP guidelines issued by the department of telecommunication/ TRAI but the complainant has totally failed to do so. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs firstly on the ground that the complainant has totally failed to produce any cogent evidence that he hired the services for port/release the cellular connections of the OPs Company after paying consideration as no such receipt of any charges in respect of port the cellular phone has been placed on file. Even, the complainant has not disclosed a single iota of word in his complaint that the OPs Company has charges some amount from the complainant on account of portability MNP. And secondly from the perusal of Bill Annexure C-1, it is duly evident that complainant was using the cell phones for his firm M/s Swami Auto Electricals and as per version of the OPs he applied for portability in his own individual name instead of company/firm name and further he did not submit proper authorization letter due to which the OPs company could not port out the telephone bearing No. 9017600003 and 90175-75802. Further, the mobile No. 98133-94243 could not be ported out as the complainant has only generated the UPC code and the Ops Company have not received any request from the recipient operator. the version of the OPs Company has not been rebutted by the complainant by filing any rejoinder of the complaint. Even, the complainant has not placed on file any copy of application or request letter vide which he requested to the OPs Company to port/release the mobile connections. Although the complainant has placed on file some screen sought of the message displayed in the mobile Annexure C-3 to C-8 to prove that he made request for port the mobile numbers but from these messages it is nowhere proved that complainant fulfilled the required formalities and submitted the required documents as per company requirements. Furthermore, when the OPs Company has released/port out one mobile cell bearing No. 9355322425 on 29.02.2016 then there was no reason to withhold the other cellular connections. Even, in the complaint the complainant has not disclosed that one cellular connection bearing No. 935522425 had already been ported out by the OPs Company as the present complaint has been filed for port out all the four connections. The Ops company has specifically taken the plea that if the complainant raised the proper request once again and submit the required documents as per company requirement the OPs Company is ready to port out the numbers.

10.                   From all the facts mentioned above, we observed that there was lack of communication between the complainant and OPs Company otherwise it is not a case of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. On the other angle also, the complainant has totally failed to place on file any complaint made to the TRAI or any Nodal Officer/Arbitrator, if any, regarding grievances.

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we dispose off the present complaint with the directions to the OPs company to convey the formalities whatsoever to the complainant within a period of 15 days and after that complainant will comply with the same within next 15 days and after that the OPs Company is directed to port the cellular connections bearing No. 90176-00003, 90175-75802 and 98133-94243 within a period of 30 days after completion of formalities failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 07.06.2017.

 

                                                                               (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                                DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR

 

 

 

                  (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)           (S.C.SHARMA)

                   MEMBER                                           MEMBER