BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.170 of 2017
Date of Instt. 01.06.2017
Date of Decision: 17.10.2018
Amit Kumar Sharma son of Shri Surinder Kumar r/o 143/2, Grover Colony, Dilbagh Nagar Extension, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Near Rana Hospital, Model Town Market, Jalandhar.
2. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.16, Udyog Vihar Phase-IV, Gurgaon.
3. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh.
4. Vodafone Mobile Service Limited, C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali.
5. Vodafone Store, Kohinoor Complex, Near Singh Sabha Gurudwara, Model Town, Jalandhar.
6. Vodafone India Headquarter, Vodafone India Limited, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Patel, Mumbai-400013.
7. Akhil Sood, r/o H. No.4078 #5, Beantpura, Chandigarh Road, Near Samrala Road.
Street No.1, Backside Gopi Chand Petrol Pump, Ludhiana.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Vipin Kanwal, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. MS Sachdev, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 to 3.
Sh. KK Arora, Adv & Sh. Vishal Gupta, Adv Counsel for the OP No.4 to 6.
Sh. Akhil Sood on behalf of the OP No.7.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is a businessman by profession. He is using the Airtel Sim No.89910229170401168170, IMSI No.404022104011681 in his mobile phone having No.98786-68000 and it came to the notice of the complainant that whenever the complainant make the payment for using the said number in routine, then the amount so paid used to be credited to some other mobile number, which is of same number. On enquiry, it came to the notice of the complainant that the Vodafone Company has also allotted the same number to the respondent No.7 and the said amount paid by the complainant has been credited in his mobile number. Even due to non receiving of calls due to above mentioned fault, the complainant is suffering a huge financial loss as he is doing the business of cloth merchant and his customers failed to contact the complainant to place order for the purchase of clothes items as whenever they tried to contact the complainant, then their numbers met with the mobile number of the respondent No.7.
2. That there is a negligence on the part of the OPs and inspite of repeated reminders and requests made by the complainant, the OPs are not paying any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant is using the above mentioned number as pre-paid and at all the times, while the payment is made there always remains confusion because some times the complainant is not receiving the message of payment as it goes to respondent No.7 and some time payment is also credited in the account of respondent No.7.
3. That to the utter surprise without any request the telephone number of the complainant has been disconnected and on that score also, the complainant is suffering a lot because his entire circle is having the said number. The complainant has been disconnected from his entire circle. Not only this, even the complainant has sent the messages to the OPs through email on 30.03.2017 requesting the OPs to look into the matter and to do the needful at their end at the earliest possible, but of no use and ultimately, the complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs on 25.06.2017, but till date no positive response has been received by the complainant, which is tantamount to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs and accordingly, a cause of action accrued to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs may kindly be directed to make good the fault and to pay damages and compensation, to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation expenses, to the tune of Rs.25,000/- along with costs of the complaint, to the complainant.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and further averred that the complaint is bad on account of lack of jurisdiction and even the complaint is frivolous and vexatious. On merits, it is submitted that as per record of the answering OP, the number in question i.e. 98786-68000 was never a customer of the responding party, the above mentioned number, as per our records was with OP No.4 to 6 since 2015. The number was never a part of the responding party's network and further submitted that the complainant never existed in the network of the answering OP as per record and as such, it is denied that the complainant made repeated reminders and requests to the answering OP i.e. Airtel. The other averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. OPs No.4 to 6 filed its separate written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant has failed to disclose the cause of action regarding which the complaint is relating deficiency in service. The bare perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant has failed to disclose any cause of action as regards the deficiency in service as has been alleged against the OP No.4 and 6 and further took a plea that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and further took a plea that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the OP No.7 has even complained to the OP No.1 to 3 as well as to the Punjab Police regarding the cloning of the SIM Cards being wrongly issued by the Airtel and no action was taken by the OP No.1 to 3. The OP No.7 has been using the same number since 2005 and presently using the same number in the Vodafone as postpaid connection and further submitted that the OP No.1 to 3 are liable for the issuance of same Prepaid mobile connection to their customer. Therefore, after so many requests made by OP No.7 to the OP No.1 to 3 for disconnection or blockage of the same, but prepaid mobile number issued by them to their customer i.e. complainant and further took a plea that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the present mobile number in question is running originally in the name of the OP No.7 and not in the name of the complainant. The other averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
6. OP No.7 filed his separate written reply and took a plea that the mobile number 98786-68000 is running in the name of OP No.7 since 2007 and the connection was released by Bharti Airtel Ltd. and he is hereby submitting mobile bill for the period starting 20th March, 2014 to 19th April, 2014 issued by Bharti Airtel Ltd. and further submitted that the aforesaid mobile number was ported out to Vodafone in October, 2015 on his request. Bill for the period 06.10.2015 to 20.10.2015 issued by Vodafone to him is being enclosed and still connection is in his name and latest bill for the period 21.05.2017 to 20.06.2017 is also attached. He came to know the issuance of duplicate sim of his mobile number in Airtel on 30.03.2017, so, accordingly, he wrote a mail to Airtel regarding that and it was acknowledged by Airtel and further prayed that the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 i.e. Sim Purchase Slip, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 i.e. E-mails between the parties, Ex.C-6 i.e. Legal Notice and Ex.C-7 i.e. Postal Receipts and then closed the evidence.
8. Similarly, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1-3/A along with document Ex.OP1-3/1 and closed the evidence.
9. Similarly, counsel for the OPs No.4 to 6 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A along with some documents Ex.OP4-6/1 to Ex.OP4-6/3 and closed the evidence.
10. OP No.7 himself tendered into evidence some documents Ex.OP7/1 to Ex.OP7/12 and then closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as case file very minutely.
12. Admittedly, the mobile phone number 98786-68000 is having two sims, both are issued by Bharti Airtel i.e. OP No.1 to 3 and the sim issued to the OP No.7/Akhil Sood has been ported in Vodafone in the year 2015, whereas the OP No.7 is using the said number in dispute since 2005. This fact has been mentioned by OP No.4 to 6 in his reply in para No.5 of preliminary objection and even OP No.4 to 6 categorically mentioned in para No.8 of the written reply that the present mobile number in question is running originally in the name of OP No.7 and the said number is in the possession of the OP No.7 since 2005, who is paying the charges of the consumption of the said mobile number 98786-68000 and later on, in the year 2015, the OP No.7 got ported the said mobile number with Vodafone Company i.e. OP No.4 to 6 after filing an application, copy of the same is available on the file Ex.OP4-6/12, not so, the OP No.7 also placed on the file a bill, which was paid by OP No.7 to Airtel Company for the month May 2014 of Rs.1140.80/- and original bill is placed on the file by the OP No.7 is Ex.OP7/1 and after getting ported the said number with Vodafone Company, the OP No.7 Akhil Sood further paying the consumption charges of the said mobile phone to the Vodafone and bills are Ex.OP7/2, Ex.OP7/3 and Ex.OP7/8 to Ex.OP7/12 and even detail of payment made by OP No.7 to Vodafone company is also placed on the file by way of statement of account Ex.OP7/4, which shows that the complainant has been paying the consumption charges since January till date, where from it is established that the OP No.7 is the original purchaser of the said mobile number and in the year 2017, when OP No.1 to 3 issued a duplicate sim of the same mobile number to the complainant, then OP No.7 made a complaint to the Airtel Company i.e. OP No.1 to 3 by way of the mail, copy of the same is available on the file Ex.OP7/6 and Ex.OP7/7, whereby make a request to deactivate the prepaid sim that has wrongly been issued by the company to the complainant Amit Kumar Sharma, but no action has been taken by the Airtel Company.
13. From the above discussion, it emerged that there is no fault, negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.4 to 6 nor there is any fault of the complainant because he went to the dealer of the OP No.1 to 3 i.e. Airtel Company and purchased one sim after making a payment in the month of January, 2017 and photostat copy of the purchase receipt is Ex.C-1. So, the complainant is a bonafide purchaser, he purchased the sim with clear mind, whereas it is the duty of the Airtel Company to supply the genuine sim to its dealer, but the OP No.1 to 3 negligently and intentionally issued the duplicate sim having mobile number 98786-68000 to the complainant, whereby complainant suffered a lot, mentally and physically, not the complainant suffered mental tension rather the OP No.1 to 3 also caused harassment to the OP No.7 also, who is suffering and contesting this complaint unnecessary for long time.
14. From the above discussion, it is clearly established that there is no negligence or deficiency OP No.4 to 6 or 7, therefore, the complaint of the complainant qua OP No.4 to 7 is dismissed, whereas we find that a duplicate sim has been sold by the OP No.1 to 3 to the complainant and therefore, OP No.1 to 3 are negligent and deficient in service and thus, they are liable to compensate the complainant and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP No.1 to 3 are directed to make good the fault by issuing a fresh sim to the complainant having a different number of the disputed number and further OP No.1 to 3 are directed to pay compensation to the complainant for harassment, to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and further OP No.1 to 3 are directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
15. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
17.10.2018 Member President
