Order dictated by:

Sh. Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member

1.       Satnam Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that   complainant  is the consumer of the opposite party bearing connection No. 9914426624. This connection was transferred by the complainant from Airtel to Videocon. On 6.7.2016 opposite party closed the connection without any reason . The complainant requested the opposite party to start the telephone connection  . But the opposite party has not considered his genuine request .  The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint :-

(a)     Opposite party be directed to restore his telephone No. 9914426624 immediately.

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 90000/- be also awarded to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Opposite party appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant  to file the present complaint ; that the present complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties. The complainant ported his pre paid connection initially from Idea Cellular to Bharti Airtel Limited (Airtel) and subsequently number was ported from Bharti Airtel Limited (Airtel) to answering opposite party. As such the Bharti Airtel company and Idea Cellular are the necessary parties, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground ; that complainant has not come with clean hands  and has suppressed the material facts  . On merits, it was submitted that the process or porting of mobile number from one service provider to another service provider is governed under Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009 formulated by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and subscriber is having option to port his mobile number as per regulations framed therein.  In pursuance to the said regulations the number in question was ported from Bharti Airtel to answering opposite party on port request dated 16.4.2016 through auto generated system  by mobile number portability clearing house, a number portability portal provided by the TRAI and activated the same on 23.4.2016. It was submitted that answering opposite party received the request through MCH portal by the Bharti Airtel Limited for disconnection of number due to non payment of outstanding amount of bill to the tune of Rs. 139/-. On receiving the said intimation regarding the disconnection, the answering opposite party called the complainant on 8-6-2016. But the complainant failed to respond the calls  and on 10-6-2016 an SMS was received regarding clearance of amount with previous company i.e. Airtel. But the complainant did not produce any receipt of settled amount with previous company i.e. Airtel within stipulated period. Thereafter  again on 24.6.2016 opposite party contacted the complainant  telephonically and asked to deposit the amount with Airtel Store and submit the receipt. But despite the intimation, complainant has failed to clear the outstanding amount resulted to which initially barring of outgoing services except emergency services on 21.6.2016 and subsequently permanent disconnection  on 6.7.2016 in pursuance to the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009. Since the connection was terminated permanently  and as per Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009 the number in question has been reversed back to Idea on 25.8.2016 i.e. parent company as the opposite party cannot retain the number for more than sixty days. As such the opposite party is not liable for any deficiency in service. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of cash payment receipt dated 27.6.2016 Ex.C-2, copy of e-mail Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence ld.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ravinder Singh Ex.OP1, copy of e-mail Ex.OP2, copy of portability detail  Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.

5.       We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for the opposite party and  have carefully gone through the record on the file.

6.       From the appraisal of the evidence , it becomes evident that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party of connection No. 9914426624 having been transferred by the complainant from Airtel to Videocon. It is the case of the complainant that on 6.7.2016 opposite party has closed his connection despite all the dues having been cleared by the complainant.

7.       Whereas the ld.counsel for the opposite party has vehemently contended that the aforesaid number is ported from Bharti Airtel to answering opposite party on port request dated 16.4.2016 and the same was activated on 23.4.2016.  It has further been contended that the donor company i.e. Bharti  Airtel sent a request for disconnection of number due to non payment of outstanding amount of bill to the tune of Rs. 139/- and intimation in this respect was sent to the complainant . But the complainant did not produce any receipt of settled amount. As such the connection has been disconnected permanently  through auto generated system as per regulations. After disconnection  the ported number through auto generated system gone to MCH a government portal for Number Portability for reversal of number and after expiry of sixty days the number returned back to Donor company on 25.8.2016.

8.       From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evidence that the connection was transferred to opposite party on 16.4.2016 and the same was activated on 23.4.2016.  But the opposite party on its own disconnected the connection of the complainant on 6.7.2016 on account of non payment of dues to its donor company i.e. Bharti Airtel. However, on the other hand complainant has made payment of the bill to the tune of Rs. 150/-  regarding bill of Rs. 139/- on 27.6.2016. Copy of payment receipt accounts for Ex.C-2 on record. But despite payment of bill, opposite party has not restored the connection. But,however, during the course of arguments, complainant has made a statement that he has obtained mobile number back after 4 months from unauthorized occupant from Sangrur . But as he has been harassed by the opposite party , as such he pressed for compensation and litigation expenses.

9.       In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that as the opposite party has disconnected the connection of the complainant and harassed the complainant without any fault. As such opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Cost of the litigation are assessed at Rs. 1000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which, complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. . Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 25.1.2017

/R/                                                                        (Anoop Sharma )

Presiding Member

                                                                             ( Rachna Arora)

                                                                                         Member