Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2^nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran

Consumer Complaint No  :     60 of 2018

Date of Institution                      :    04.06.2018

Date of Decision               :    10.12.2021

Dinesh Chander Sharma son of Ram Narain Sharma resident of B4/194, Guru Amardass Avenue Goindwal Road, City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran.                                                                         ...Complainant

Versus

1. Jio Centre, Opposite Civil Hospital 2^nd Floor of H.D.F.C. Bank Building Amritsar Road Tarn Taran-143401,
2. Reliance Corporate Park, Building No. 4, 5 TTC, Industrial Area Thane-Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai- 400701, Maharashtra.

…Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Ms. Nidhi Verma Member

For Complainant                     Sh. Dinesh Chander Sharma

For Opposite Party No.1                  Sh. Nitin Sharma Advocate

For Opposite Party No. 2                 Ex parte

ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant has been using Mobile No. 9988866229 for more than 9 years. His last service i.e. Idea Cellular Ltd. was not providing good services. So complainant decided to port his number from Idea to Jio Prepaid in month of April 2018. So complainant sent text message for porting on 5.4.2018 to 1900 at 22.20 p.m. and received unique porting code IP799311 on same day which was valid till 20.4.2018. The complainant went to JIO Office Tarn Taran on 7.4.2018 for porting his number. The complainant is using Samsung Note 2 (GT-N7105T) 4G handset from the last 2 years. The complainant contacted the executive present there and told him about his requirements. He asked the complainant, had he 4G handset with him. The complainant showed him his mobile phone. Then he asked for complainant’s aadhar card. The complainant gave it to him, he took his biometric machine, took fingerprint, noted down unique porting code from complainant’s mobile phone and issued him new JIO prepaid sim. The complainant was informed that new JIO Sim will be activated within 5 working days and idea sim will automatically get disabled. On 10^th April 2018, the complainant’s Idea sim got deactivated, but Jio Sim did not start. The complainant called JIO Customer care from other number and they told him to get first recharge of Rs. 399+99 done and then JIO sim will start working. The complainant got recharge from his friend, but number did not start. Later on after talking to JIO customer care for several times, the complainant was told to visit JIO Centre to get his issue resolved.  On 11^th April 2018, the complainant went to JIO Centre for getting his sim activated. He was attended by their official who after some troubleshooting and setting changes told him that his JIO Sim is already active but his handset does not support JIO sim even if it is 4G. This was first time the complainant was told that his hand set does not support JIO sim after his sim got ported to JIO.  He told the complainant to either buy a new mobile phone that supports JIO sim or buy a new number from some other operator. But these options were not feasible to complainant and buying a new handset would cost him more than Rs. 15,000/- and buying new sim would mean that he had to lose his number that is 9 years old. Being a banker in Punjab and Sind Bank, the complainant’s number is circulated throughout his official and personal circle. The complainant told them to port his number back to Idea but he was told that as per porting rules he cannot change operator for at least 90 days. As an interim relief option, JIO Official installed an application in complainant’s phone and told him that his number will work as long as internet is working on phone. Without internet connection, the complainant’s number will not work. Handling calls through application causes a lot of troubles as many times some random number from complainant’s contact list automatically starts dialing. Calls suddenly get disconnected, call automatically gets hold up, cannot send or receive SMS directly and many other working problems that complainant is facing from last 1 month since he is using JIO in his same old handset. The complainant is fully harassed in using his own number using his same old handset. His points are that :-

1. Before his number was ported, the complainant was never told that his 4G handset will not support JIO sim, otherwise the complainant has ported to Airtel or Vodafone or remained with idea.
2. Complainant showed his handset to JIO Official on the very first day when he went to get his number ported. Why complainant’s handset compatibility was not checked at that time?
3. Complainant’s 9 years old number is struck with JIO as he cannot port out before 90 days.
4. The app option given by JIO to complainant to keep using his number on same handset causes a lot of troubles as told above.
5. Why should complainant buy a new handset forcefully when his old handset is working properly on other 4G networks?
6. Complainant is forced to face problems till 11^th July 2018 till 90 days period gets over which is a long duration for him as it is causing him huge lose financially and mentally.

The complainant prayed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith litigation charges of Rs. 10,000/- . The complainant also prayed to get his SIM immediately ported to network of his choice, if possible.  Alongwith the complaint complainant the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, Screenshot of text message from JIO for mobile number portability Ex. C-2, Original envelop in which JIO sim is received Ex. C-3, Screenshot of text message from JIO for conformation of successful porting Ex. C-4, Screenshot of multiple calls(14) to complainant’s electrician Mr. Mohan Ex. C-5, Screenshot of multiple calls (26) to complainant’s hairdresser Mr. Babbu Ex. C-6, Screenshot of multiple calls(14) to complainant’s colleague Mr. Abhinav Mishra Ex. C-7, Screenshot of multiple calls (15) to complainant’s father Sh. Ram Narain.

2        Notice of the complaint issued to the opposite parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has impleaded opposite party in a very casual manner. The complainant ought to have impleaded Reliance Jio Info comm Ltd. having its local office at Tarn Taran, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on grounds of non-joinder/ mis joinder of necessary parties as opposite party No. 2 is not related to the facts and issues raised by the complainant in the present complaint. The opposite parties are LTE mobile network operator in India that provides wireless 4G LTE services. The Opposite party has set up an end to end all Internet Protocol (IP) network and has deployed 4G LTE technology for voice and data. This technology puts high speed mobile internet access in to the hands of Indian Customers across all PAN India. At the outset, the opposite party submits that the above complaint filed by the complainant is frivolous and misconceived both in law and facts. Opposite Party no. 1 submits that instant complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini as the statements, contentions and allegations stated by the complainant in the complaint are completely false and without any cogent documentary evidence in support thereof. Infact, the complaint has been filed in irresponsible and casual manner without setting out any factual details of the grievances which the complainant has addressed and any alleged failures to address the same by the opposite party. The complainant has failed to show any harassment, mental agony and any loss and /or that there is any deficiency from the opposite parties side in rendering the services and attending the complaint of the complainant. As per the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009 made applicable by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) vide its notification dated 23^rd September 2009 No. 116-4/2009 MN(Vol-II),Chapter II Mobile Number Portability, regulation 4 mandates that except a provided, every services Provider/ Access Provider is under obligation to provide mobile number portability whenever any subscriber wishes to port his/ her number from its existing service Provider/ Access Provider to any other service Provider/ Access Provider for both Pre*paid and Post Paid & SHALL, provide the same upon request made as per the norms on a non-discriminatory basis. Thus the answering opposite party was under obligation to facilitate and provide the number portability to the complainant irrespective of the fact that whether the complainant has means to utilize the services being provided by the answering opposite party or not and the answering opposite party is not under any obligation to provide the means of utilization i.e. a compatible device/ handset to the subscriber / complainant as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score.  The answering opposite party carves leave of this commission to place on record the Itemized usage of the JIO services from 1^st April to 14^th July 2018 to demonstrate before this commission that the claim of the complainant that he was not able to make calls from the JIO App is false, vexatious and malafide in intend. In the month of April 2018, the complainant initiated Voice calls and the usage from 11^th April 2018 till 30^th April 2018 was 6 hours 15 minutes and 48 seconds. In the month of May 2018 complainants voice calls usage stood at 4 Hours 47 minutes and 1 second. In the month of June 2018 the complainant made voice calls of 7 Hours 46 months and similarly in the month of July 2018 complainant from 1^st July 2018 to 14 July 2018 made voice calls which stood 2 Hours 53 minutes and 17 seconds. Complainant submitted the screenshot of the dialer or JIO 4G voice app does not prove  that the calls were triggered by JIO App as such screen shots can be taken after completion of self initiated voice calls. As such, the averments that due to Jio App installed by complainant in his Samsung LTE handset, automatic call dialing was being initiated is false, frivolous and without any basis. Complainant through this instant complaint is trying to gain undue monetary advantage to which he is not entitled to and the instant complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. As provided n Para No. 3, opposite party is an 4G Volte operator and the subscriber should have a compatible handset to receive the 4G Volte handsets since the opposite party is only providing 4G Volte telecom services. On Merits, it was pleaded that this technology puts high speed mobile internet access in to the hands of Indian customers across all 22 telecom circles in India and offering free voice calls to its customers with certain restriction to avoid misuse/ abusive of free voice calls as provided in the Terms and Conditions of the offerings in its website.  The answering opposite party had activated the SIM of complainant on 10^th April 2018, however, the complainant did not opt for any plan as such he could not avail any services on 10^th April 2018. The complainant recharged his JIO number for Prima Membership 99 and opted for MRP 399 plan which was successfully recharged on 11^th April 2018. As the complainant was not able to make outgoing calls due to lack of compatible handset, he was advised to download My Jio App for enabling complainant to make Voice Calls . Use of mobile handset is exclusively the choice of a customer and the service provider/ access provider is under no obligation to provide a compatible mobile handset to the customer. The complainant is trying to pass on his mistake/ lack of ability to use Jio 4G VolLTE SIM upon the answering opposite party by making false and vexatious averments. The complainant is trying to derive monetary benefits out of his own mistakes and lack of means to utilize the JIO SIM which is no means can be construed as deficiency of service by the answering opposite party. Answering opposite party is under obligation to activate SIM of any customer who opts for mobile Number Portability. The screenshots attached by the complainant as Exhibits does not prove that the calls had been generated automatically due to due to My Jio App as the screenshots are merely the call log of his mobile handset.  When the complainant approached the answering opposite party with the problem of not being able to make outgoing calls, the answering opposite party provided him the best possible solution which the complainant availed and thereafter made regular outgoing calls. The complainant never showed his mobile handset initially to any of the officials of answering opposite party. The complainant is bound by the Regulation notified by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and answering opposite party cannot be held responsible for procedures well laid sown. The answering opposite party never asked or forced the complainant to buy any new handset. The complainant has utilized mobile number portability as per his own desire and wishes and for the reason of unsatisfactory service by his previous service provider.  The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Alongwith written version, the opposite party has placed on record copy of telecommunication mobile Number Portability Regulations 2009 Ex. OP/1, Copies of Itemised usage are annexed as OP/2, Affidavit of Mr. Yash Mittal Ex. OP/3, Attested copy of Power of attorney Ex. OP/4.

4        Notice of this complaint was issued to the opposite party No. 2 but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2, therefore, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.9.2018 of this Commission.

5        We have heard and Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record placed on the file.

6        It is not disputed that the complainant was using mobile No. 9988866229 for more than 9 years and he was the customer of Idea Cellular Ltd. As the present cellular operator was not providing the service to the satisfaction of the complainant, he decided to port his Number from Idea to Jio Pre paid in the month of April 2018 and to port his number the complainant himself sent text message for porting the number on dated 5.4.2018 to 1900 at 22:20 PM and thereafter he received a unique porting code IP 7 99311 on the same day which was valid till 20-4-2018. Thereafter, the complainant visited the JIO office on 7.4.2018 for porting the number and executive of the opposite party issued the new JIO pre paid sim after completing all the formalities.  After that on 10.4.2018 his Idea Sim got deactivated but his JIO sim was not activated. After that he contacted JIO customer care and opposite party told him to get first recharge of Rs. 399 + Rs. 99 and after that JIO sim will start working. Even after that the sim was not activated and opposite party No. 1 asked to visit the JIO center personally to resolve the matter. On 11.4.2018, the complainant visited JIO Center and officials of the opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that JIO Sim is already activated but his hand set did not support JIO Sim even if his hand set is 4G enabled. The opposite party No. 1 told him that either buy a new mobile phone that supports JIO Sim or by a new number from other service provider. It was not possible to buy a new hand set as well as new sim as he would lost his previous number which was having with him for the past 9 years.  After that the officials of the JIO installed an app in the hand set of the complainant and told him that his number will work through internet and he can make the calls without interference as long as internet will work. According to complainant, there was lot of problems and he could not make and receive the calls properly. On the other hands, the opposite parties stated in their written version that opposite parties are LTE Mobile Network operator in India, that provides wireless 4G LTE service. The opposite party has set up and end to end all internet protocol network and has deployed 4GLTE Technology for voice and data. This technology puts high speed mobile network, internet access in to the hands of Indian customers across all PAN India and the opposite parties stated there in that every service provider/ access provider is under obligation to provide mobile Number portability whenever any subscriber wishes to port on request. The opposite party has placed on record about the usage of JIO service/ voice calls by the complainant time to time the itemized copy of usage are annexure as OP/2(Colly) .

7        The main point of controversy is that the complainant has raised the allegations against the opposite party is that due to the opposite parties he had suffered a lot because he could not make calls properly. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant himself approached to the opposite party for porting his number and as such he sent a text message to the opposite party for the same. So it is very much clear from the complaint that the complainant himself approached the opposite party for portability of the existing SIM and his JIO SIM could not work as his mobile set was not fully compatible with 4G network. Opposite party has never asked him to port his present SIM to the JIO network. The complainant has not placed on record any document which proves that the opposite party No. 1 has ever asked that his mobile set is compatible to the JIO network.  Though his phone was activated on 11.4.2018 he availed the services through internet. The opposite party has placed on record the itemized usage data which shows that the complainant was using the service of JIO network. The opposite party has solved the problem time to time. But as his phone was not compatible with the JIO network/ services we are of the considered view that as the complainant has himself approached the opposite party to avail the services and as per record annexure with the written version clearly shows that the handset of the complainant was not compatible with the services of the opposite party as we do not find any deficiency in services on the part of opposite party.  

8        In view of the above discussion, there is no merits in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in the Open Commission

10.12.2021