DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

 Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Friday, the 27^th  day of September 2024

CC. 235/2019

Complainant

Muhammed Iqbal,

Marconi Networks and Telecom,

42/826, Mariyambi building,

Above Union Bank of India,

Cherootty road, Kozhikode – 673 032.

(By Adv. Sri. Rafthas.P)

Opposite Parties

1.             Jaswant IDEA Store,

Kunnamangalam, Kozhikode,

Kerala.

2.             Vodafone Idea Ltd,

Ground floor VJ Tower,

Service road Vytilla,

Ernakulam, Kochi.

(OP2 - By Adv. Sri. Syam Padman)

ORDER         

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT

            This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The complainant is a business man and he is using mobile connection with No. 9446071111 for his personal use. Earlier it was serviced by the BSNL. The first opposite party approached the complainant and assured various services including bill amount collection facility and other facilities. The complainant port the service of his mobile connection to the second opposite party. As he was in frequent travelling, the complainant opted IR packs (international roaming packs) as an add on service to reduce his bill amount which was used only once and subsequently the complainant had withdrawn the IR pack.

3. In the firm where the complainant is working there are 5 other connections from the second opposite party with IR packs. Usually those connections were recharged by the first opposite party after collecting payment directly. On 17^th May 2019 even though the first opposite party collected the IR pack amount, he omitted to recharge the same. It was noticed that the first opposite party recharged IR pack only for two numbers. Subsequently, the second opposite party disconnected all the connections which were used in the firm, which includes IR pack connections and other connections and the number which is used as a personal number of the complainant.
4. On enquiry, the second opposite party stated that all the connections come under group connection and that was the reason why it was disconnected. The complainant never made any request to add his personal connection in group connection. The opposite parties included his number in group connection without his knowledge and request. Even after paying the entire bill amount on 18/06/2019 to this number, the opposite parties have not reinstated the connection. The act of the opposite parties is not only unfair trade practice but also deficiency of service.  Huge loss was occasioned to the complainant since the incoming and outgoing calls were barred. Hence the complaint to reinstate the mobile connection and restore the connection of the complainant as individual connection and to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant  for the mental agony suffered and also Rs. 50,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
5. The first opposite party was set ex-parte. The second opposite party has entered appearance and filed petition challenging the maintainability of the complaint. No written version was filed. However, the second opposite party has participated in the proceedings.
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;                                                                                                                         1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?                                                                                                                                               2) Whether there was any unfair trade and business practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as                      alleged?                                                                                                                                                                                                 3) Reliefs and costs.
7. PW1 was examined and Ext A1 was marked on the side of the complainant. Exts B1 and B2 were marked during the cross examination of PW1 on the side of the second opposite party.  
8. Heard. Both sides filed argument note.
9. Point No 1:   The grievance projected in the complaint is that the mobile connection with No. 9446071111, which was meant for personal use was added in to the group connection of the firm in which he is working and was disconnected by the second opposite party.
10. PW1 is the power of attorney holder of the complainant. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the bill issued by the BSNL. Ext B1 is the copy of the customer application form and Ext B2 is the copy of the request letter.
11. On a careful consideration and scrutiny of the evidence in hand, it can be seen that the complainant is neither the owner nor the user of the mobile No. 9446071111. Ext B1 and enclosure contains 6 mobile numbers in the cluster. As per Ext B1 the owner of all the 6 mobile numbers in the cluster is the company by name Marconi Network and Telecom Ltd, where the complainant is working. Ext B1 further shows that the user of the disputed mobile number is one Muneer and not the complainant. So the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint before this Commission as he is not a consumer as contemplated under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, Ext B1 shows that the real owner of the mobile connection under the cluster is the company and all these mobile connections along with the disputed one were used by the company for commercial purpose. This is admitted by PW1 in the cross examination. PW1 has admitted that all these mobile connections were used by the company for commercial purpose and the same are inevitable tool for the business of the company. It is admitted by PW1 that the company has filed another complaint as CC. No. 237/2019 before this Commission stating that the company had to sustain huge loss due to disconnection. In the instance case, the mobile connections are taken for being used in activities directly intended to generate profit for the company. The same has close and direct nexus with profit generating activity of the company. As the owner of the mobile connection is a company and as the complainant is not the user of the mobile number in dispute and it is used for a commercial purpose, we are of the view that the complaint is not maintainable. Point is answered against the complainant.
12. Point No: 2 On merits, it may be noted that as per Ext B2, the authorised signatory of Marconi Networks and Telephone had requested the second opposite party issue this 6 vodafone mobile post-paid connection which includes the disputed number and also undertaken that the payment of the bills for the mobile numbers would be done by the company only. Ext A1 shows that the post-paid mobile connection were made under a single cluster id No. 10053510434. It has come out in evidence that the payments are adjusted against the outstanding in group connections. When there are substantial outstanding bill due to non-payment, the entire connection under the customer id will be barred unless and until the outstanding payment is cleared. The customer connections being under single customer id, outstanding bills in any one number will lead to automatic suspension of all other numbers. It has come out in evidence that since the bill amount was not paid, all the numbers in the single cluster was deactivated automatically which resulted in deactivation of the disputed mobile number as well. As long as the bill amount is not paid, the opposite parties cannot be found fault with for deactivation of all the numbers in the cluster which includes the disputed mobile number as well. That being the position, no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service as alleged can be attributed against the opposite parties. Thus on merits also the complaint must fail.  
13. Point No. 3:- In view of the finding on the above points, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 27 day of September, 2024.

Date of Filing: 26/07/2019

                                 Sd/                                                             Sd/-                                                           Sd/-                        PRESIDENT                                              MEMBER                                                    MEMBER                               

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1 -  Bill issued by the BSNL.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Ext B1 - Copy of the customer application form.

Ext B2 - Copy of the request letter.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1  -   JINESH .P.B  (Power of Attorney holder of the Complainant).

Witnesses for the opposite party

NIL                         

                               Sd/                                                             Sd/-                                                           Sd/-                        PRESIDENT                                              MEMBER                                                    MEMBER                

 True Copy,      

                                                                                                                            Sd/-                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                               Assistant Registrar.