Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/90/2016

Sanjay Anand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prince Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

In person

19 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.

 

                     Consumer Complaint No.  90 of 04.10.2016

                      Date of Decision             :   19.06.2017

 

 

Sanjay Anand S/o Sh.Chanderpal Anand R/o VPO Rattewal, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.                                                                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1. Prince Telecom (Authorized Store of Idea Cellular), Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahr, through proprietor.
2. Idea Cellular Limited, (Mobile Phone Service Company), C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-VII, Mohali (S.A.S. Nagar) – 160055, Punjab through its Managing Director/Competent Authority.
3. Vodafone Mobile Services, (Circle Office Punjab), C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-VII, Mohali through its Manager/MD.                                                               ….Opposite Parties

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

cOUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant   :         In person.

For OP No.1        :         Ex parte.

For OP No.2.       :         Sh.Pushpinder Kataria, Advocate

For OP No.3.       :         Sh.BPS Panesar, Advocate

 

QUORUM:

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

ORDER

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by complainant wherein it is alleged that he is permanent resident of VPO Rattewal, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.  He was permanent customer of OP No.2 upto 30.06.2016 and was using corporate postpaid plan for mobile No.9463713181 of the OP No.2 from long last and he port-out his mobile number 9463713181 from the OP No.2 due to dissatisfaction in service and switched to OP No.3 since 01 July 2016.  OP No.2 used to deduct his bill of the said mobile number on 7^th day of each month automatically from his account.  On 1.7.2016, he switched to OP No.3 and on 15.07.2016, he paid full and final payment to OP No.2 for the bill of June 2016 and deposited cash with OP No.1, who issued receipt No.2537882 dated 15.07.2016 but he did not update the same to the OP No.3, although he already paid the amount to OP No.1 who is authorized centre of OP No.2.  The number in question was running properly and he was paying the proper bill amount on proper date to the OP No.3.  But unfortunately, a call was received from OP No.3 that he did not pay the full and final amount to the OP No.2 of Rs.1373/- for the month of June and his number will be barred.  Accordingly, he approached to OP No.1 and asked about the problem who replied him to update the amount to OP No.2 and will convey to the OP No.3.  In this regard, he also made complaint to OP No.2 who also replied the same. On 08.09.2016, the OP No.3 again called to the complainant about the same problem i.e. non-payment of Rs.1373/- to OP No.2 for the month of June and he again approached to OP No.1 but he gave the same reply.  On 28.09.2016, the OP No.3 barred the outgoing calls of mobile number 9463713181 illegally.  After that, he approached to OP No.1 for the solution of problem but he misbehaved with the complainant and asked the complainant that he had not updated the amount.  He also asked the complainant to do anything but he will not update the amount.  The  complainant also called the OP No.2 who also did not solve the problem. 
2. Thereafter the complainant called to OP No.3 for this problem who replied that he has not paid the bill of June to OP No.2 and OP No.2 asked to barred the outgoing calls of mobile number and OP No.3 called the complainant that his number will be blocked permanently.  Whereas, the complainant has already paid full and final amount of Rs.1380/- instead of Rs.1373/- to the Op No.2 through OP No.1.
3. That the complainant paid amount of Rs.1380/- to OP No.2 through OP No.1 on 15.07.2016 while OP No.2 issued receipt of the amount on 29.09.2016 which is negligence of the OP No.2.  Whereas, the complainant is paying the bill to OP No.3 in proper time.  Due to this act of OPs, complainant suffered great mentally and financial loss due to barring of outgoing call of corporate mobile No.94637-13181 of complainant from 28.09.2016 to 30.09.2016 and whereby he suffered great mental tension and financial loss as the OPs have failed to perform their duties towards their customer.  Although, the complainant suffered great mental tension and financial loss, but he claimed Rs.50,000/- as damage for mental agony and monetary loss and further prayed that complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental agony as well as monetary loss as suffered by complainant and also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but despite service OP No.1 did not come and he was proceeded against ex-parte, whereas, OP No.2 filed his reply through his counsel and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant has failed to disclose the cause of action which the complaint is relating to deficiency in service and further averred that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that District Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.  It is pertinent to mention here that the appropriate Forum for filing the present complaint is under the provisions of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and present Forum has got no jurisdiction and further alleged that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reason that the complainant has failed to raise any allegation against the answering OP No.2 and further submitted that OP No.3 has barred the outgoing service of the complainant as he failed to show the status of outstanding payment to OP No.3.  It is further averred that complaint made by complainant is liable to be dismissed on the ground that complainant himself is at fault as the he himself has not updated the status of outstanding payment to the OP No.3.  It is pertinent to mention here that, as per the DOT guidelines it is the duty of the complainant to make aware to OP No.3 if any payment was made by him.  On merits, the allegations made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that complaint is without merit and same may be dismissed.
5. OP No.3 filed separate reply whereby it took almost the same preliminary objections as taken by OP No.2.  Apart from that he alleged that OP No.3 has barred the outgoing services of complainant as he had not made the full and final payment to the parent company/prior company.  Further, it is relevant to mention that OP No.1&2 has never updated about any payment received from the complainant and as per TRAI Rules and Regulations, the answering OP has rightly barred the connection of the complainant due to non-payment of the bill to the parent company.  On merits, all the allegations made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that complaint of the complainant is without merits and same is liable to be dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case, complainant himself has tendered into evidence self-declaration in the shape of affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.
7. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.2  has tendered into evidence affidavit of Manoj Madan, authorized Signatory Ex.OP2/A alongwith copy of guidelines Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence.
8. Similarly, counsel for OP No.3 also tendered into evidence affidavit of Pushkal Chauhan, Manager Legal Vodafone Mobile Service Limited Ex.OP3/A and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OP No.2&3 and also gone through complaint file alongwith documents very minutely.
10. The dispute in this case is very simple as per allegation of the complainant that he was having a mobile connection of Idea issued by OP No.1&2 bearing number 9463713181 and he wanted to get port-out this number from company-OP-2 to company – OP-3 – Vodafone and accordingly, he visited to OP No.1 for payment of outstanding bill on 15.07.2016 and receipt was also issued but the OP No.1&2 did not update the said bill in the system due to that deficiency fault, mobile connection of the complainant was remained dead for the period 28.09.2016 to 30.09.2016 and due to which he suffered mental tension and agony and harassment and for that reason he is entitled to be indemnified by way of compensation as well as entitled to litigation expenses.
11. No doubt, the allegations of the complainant are replied by OP No.2&3 and further OP No.2 brought on the file copy of the TRAI – Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulation – 2009.  Copy of same is Ex.OP2/1 and we have gone through this booklet i.e. called Regulation 2009, wherein the relevant Sections are Section 14, Sub-section (4) and Subjection Section (5) and further Section 15 Sub Section (3), which are relating to problem in issue.  Firstly, we have to discuss whether the complainant has deposited due charges of the mobile, for that purpose, the complainant has brought on record his sworn affidavit wherein he categorically mentioned that he deposited the due outstanding bill on 15.07.2016 and in support of this he produced on file copy of receipt Ex.C-2, wherein the date mention as 15.07.2016 and amount paid by him is Rs.1380/- and further a document Ex.C-3 shows that the amount paid by complainant on 15.07.2016 was updated in the system by OP No.1&2 on 29.09.2016 and even the OP No.1&2 through email admitted and regretted the delay for updating the said amount vide email Ex.C-4.  So one thing is established that complainant paid the amount on 15.07.2016, whereas the OP No.1&2 updated the same on 29.07.2016.  Now we see that what are the Rules and Regulations.   As per Section 14 Sub Section (4), if a subscriber failed to pay the outstanding bill to the previous company, the said company ask to the new company to disconnect the ported number. But prior to asking for disconnection it is necessary to give notice to the subscriber to make the payment within 7 days but in this case the complainant had already paid the amount and as such requirement of Section 14 Sub Section-4 is not required to comply with and then coming to Section 15 Sub Section-3, whereby a power has been given to the new company that cell number so ported to disconnect but prior to that 7 days notice be given to the subscriber to produce any evidence for making payment.  Admittedly, as per version of the complainant he received two telephone calls from OP No.3 to make the payment of outstanding bill amount upon that call the complainant approached to OP No.1&2 but they did not bother and as such it is established that OP No.3 is within its authority as given by the said ibid Regulation 2009, whereas the OP No.1&2 was negligent.  They have miserably failed to update the payment made by complainant much prior to September when connection was disconnected and there is clear deficiency on the part of OPs No.1&2.  Therefore, the complaint of the complainant against OP No.3 is dismissed and against OPs No.1&2 is partly accepted and accordingly OPs No.1&2 are directed to pay a compensation for mental agony and harassment to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and also pay litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/-.
12. Entire payment be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.
13. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
14. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 19.06.2017                                                         

 

 

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Karnail Singh)

Member                                  President