Date of Filing: 18/04/2016
Date of Order: 30/12/2017
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.P alleging deficiency of service and prays for orders to direct the O.P for the following reliefs:-
a) To direct the O.P to restore the connection of complainant Mobile No.8050552716.
b) To pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- incurred towards huge loss and also suffered both bodily, physically and mentally by the complainant.
c) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to pass such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the O.P is a company actively involved in telecom service provider and in the business of providing various telecommunications related services like mobile services etc. Further states that the O.P in a camp conducted at Manyata Embassy Bangalore offered special and attractive offers in respect of post paid mobile connection and complainant being influenced by the fabulous attractive scheme agreed to portability of his mobile No 8050552716 and as per the request of the executives of O.P submitted all the documents in respect of identification and address process mandated by O.P at camp. Further on 20.02.2016 the O.P through text message confirmed that receipt for porting of the said mobile number and on 25.02.2016 the O.P confirmed the validation of the documents for porting of the said mobile to Airtel was completed and was being forwarded to Tata Tele Services after successfully completion of porting of the said mobile number. Further states that on 05.03.2016 the O.P through text message confirmed the address verification successfully. Further after successfully activation of the said mobile number on 12.03.2016 the O.P sent a text message informing that the credit limit of the said mobile number was Rs 1500/- and on 16.03.2015 the O.P without any intimation disconnected the connection without giving any reason and the same was brought to the knowledge of the O.P through e-mail and after receipt of the said email communication the O.P stated that the said mobile number barred due to AVC-Address verification rejection and directed the complainant to visit the nearest Airtel Relationship Centre and submitted the documents again as suggested by the O.P. Further the complainant as per the advice visited the nearest Airtel Relationship Centre at Mattikeri and Hebbala for submitting KYC documents but the executives of the said centre refused to accept the documents.
3. Further states that complainant went to the said camp which arranged at that time but the said camp was closed and on 19.03.2016 the same was intimated to the O.P through Email but the O.P again and again stating the complainant to visit nearest Airtel relationship center and submits documents for address verification and due to the said attitude of the O.P the complainant with no other alternative remedy and finally sent the said documents through Email and though the O.P received the said document but did not take any step to resolve the problem and again sent the e-mail to complainant to visit nearest Airtel center and documents for address verification. Further states that the O.P without conducting proper due-verification of residential address as furnished by the complainant and the O.P by giving evasive reasons that address verification is rejected disconnected the service to the said mobile number. Further states that the complainant could not receive any business and family calls and suffered mental agony and irreparable loss due to the sole negligent act and deficiency service of the O.P. Further complainant got issued legal notice to O.P but O.P did not comply the demand made in the legal notice nor replied to the same. Hence this complaint.
4. Upon issuance of notice, O.P entered appearance through his counsel and filed its version. In the version it is contended that, the complainant is not maintainable either in law or in facts. Further contended that the dispute raised by the complainant is between the subscriber and Telecom service provider and the remedy available for the complainant is under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides for adjudication of disputes under the provision of Arbitration Act and on this count itself the present complaint is liable to dismissed at the threshold. Further contended the complainant had approached the O.P for porting the mobile number from Tata Docomo to O.P and the complainant had furnished the copies of documents pertaining to his identity of address proof and the said documents were accepted by the O.P for verification by the O.P. Accordingly the porting was done pending address and identity verification of the subscriber. Further contended that on verification of the address it was found that the address was not matching hence the complainant was informed to submit fresh set of documents to the O.P. Since the complainant did not furnish fresh set of documents in view of the failure in address verification without any option O.P had to disconnect the service and the fact was also informed to the complainant while mail was sent on 19.3.2016. Further contended that the complainant has submitted the documents along with the notice dated 26.3.2016 immediately after acknowledging the notice on conducting the tele-verification and O.P has activated the service on 28.4.2016 i.e. before filing this complaint and the O.P had acted in accordance with the TRAI guidelines and there is no willful negligence or default on the part of O.P. However, complainant was requested to visit nearest Airtel relationship center and submit the document but complainant did not do so but sent the documents through e-mail which is not permissible and O.P cannot accept the documents sent through e-mail but the O.P as a goodwill measure accepted the documents sent through post though the same is not permissible and the connection reactivated immediately. Further the O.P denied that it has unilaterally issued the bill without compliance of demand made, hence denying all the averments made in the complaint O.P prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both parties have filed his affidavit evidence and we also heard the arguments.
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration is:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
7. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B): In the Negative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No. (A) & (B):-
8. On perusing the pleadings of the rival parties and the evidence placed on record, it discloses that, it is not in dispute that the complainant ported his number from TATA DOCOMO to Airtel i.e. with the O.P. It is also not in dispute that initially the service of the O.P after porting number it was given to the complainant and the O.P also requested the complainant to provide certain documents like address proof etc.
9. The sole allegation of the complainant is that, the O.P though assured to port the number on providing address proof document and the complainant though provided such documents but the O.P asked the complainant to visit nearest O.P Centre and to submit documents, whereas, O.P centre did not accept the documents and he has sent through the document through email also, but the O.Ps disconnect the service of the complainant’s mobile number.
10. Per-contra O.P contended that, though they have given the service for the complainant and asked the complainant to produce certain documents for the verification as per the TRAI guidelines, but the complainant did not submit such documents and however, as per basis of the postal documents sent by the complainant service is restored before filing this complaint. Hence contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
11. In order to prove the case, the complainant and the O.P and both parties filed their affidavit evidence along with documentary evidence.
12. On perusal of the affidavit evidence of the complainant the complainant reiterated all the facts narrated in the complaint. However on perusal of documents filed by the complainant i.e. Doc.No.1, 2, 3, 4 and these documents evident that complainant ported his TATA Docomo number to Airtel i.e. the O.P and initially the O.P accepted the documents and also given the credit limit for Rs 1500/-. It is note worthy to mention that as per the statutory authorities it is the duty of the telephonic service providers like O.P or any other company as to follow certain terms and conditions as well as the norms of the central Government Authorities and accordingly the O.P insisted for the complainant to submit the documents like address proof etc. for due verification and hence asked the complainant to approach any one of the nearest O.P centre to submit documents but the complainant did not submit the same but he has stated that he himself sent the document through post and email.
13. It is pertinent to note that the documents sent through the email cannot be accepted by the O.P authorities and also it is contrary to the TRAI rules also. Hence it is the duty of the complainant to provide full proof of address and other documents as per the requirements of the statutory authorities. Furthermore the complainant did not produced any cogent evidence in order to believe that the O.P service centre refused to accept the documents. Therefore in the absence of the any credible evidence the mere allegation of the complainant cannot withstand for the scrutiny of this Forum. Hence the allegation of the complainant is lame of strength and holds no water. In the light of above discussion, we reached to conclusion that complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and he is not entitled for the any relief as sought in the complaint. Accordingly, we answered the Points No. (A) and (B) in the Negative.
POINT No. (C):
14. On the basis of answering the Points (A) and (B), in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 30th Day of December 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
*Rak
