Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/548

RAjnish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Communication Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Sood

29 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                          C.C.NO. 548 of 08.08.2014

                                                          Date of Decision: 29/05/2015

 

Rajnish Kumar Singla son of Shri Piara Lal Singla, resident of 61, Maya Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. 

                                                                                      … Complainant.

                                             Versus

                  

1.Reliance Communication Limited, S.C.O.120, 3 & 4 Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Officer Incharge.

2.Reliance Communication Limited, Reliance ADAG House, 110 Ft. Road, Prahlad Nagar Road, Ahmedabad-380051, through its Officer Incharge.

3.Reliance Communication Limited, H Block, 1^st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai-400710, Maharashtra, through its Director/M.D.

4.Reliance Communication Limited, 1^st Floor, Tower F, D.L.F.Building, Plot No.2, Rajiv Gandhi I.T.Park, Chandigarh, through its Officer Incharge.

 

                                                                                      …Opposite Parties

          Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Quorum     Sh. R.L. Ahuja, President

                   Ms.Babita, Member

         

Present       Sh.Sanjeev Sood, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Sunil Goel, Adv. for OPs.

 

                                                ORDER

R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by Sh.Rajnish Kumar Singla(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Reliance Communication Limited and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to issue the abovesaid mobile number to the complainant and also to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5 lakh for the physical as well as mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him due to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had been consuming the service of Ops vide mobile No.8000000069. Earlier the complainant was availing the services of Ops through the abovesaid mobile number, however, subsequently through the facility of portability, the complainant got the abovesaid mobile number transferred in AIRTEL prepaid. The complainant used the abovesaid number through AIRTEL prepaid for some duration and thereafter, the complainant again got changed the abovesaid number in Reliance through portability and the complainant used the abovesaid sim for some duration. However, the Ops terminated the abovesaid mobile number of the complainant without giving any prior warning/message and without assigning any cogent reason which is totally illegal, arbitrarily, capricious, against and settled rules, regulations and norms and amounts to gravest deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant made repeated requests and approaches to the Ops through protracted correspondence for the revival of the abovesaid mobile number but with no result and every times, the Ops putting off the matter on one or the other pretext. The complainant has suffered utmost physical as well as mental pain, agony and harassment at the hands of the Ops as the complainant had given the abovesaid number to his many business associates, near, dears, relatives and friends etc., and due to non-working of the number, the complainant could not attend several important calls. The complainant also got served a registered legal notice dated 11.2.2014 upon the Ops to issue the abovesaid mobile number alongwith compensation of Rs.5 lakh. However, despite receipt of the said notice, Ops failed to do the needful. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OPs were duly served and appeared through their counsel Sh.Sunil Goel, Advocate and filed their written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum as the complainant with ulterior motive has filed a frivolous complaint just to harass the answering Ops to achieve his motive of getting the number activated which is against the process as laid by the Department of Telecommunication-TRAI with regard to the number portability i.e. MNP policy. As per the present prevalent MNP Policy, a number can be ported from one telecom service provider to another telecom service provider within the same Telecom Circle. That means a number obtained from the Punjab Telecom Circle can only be ported to any of the Service Operators within the Telecom Circle of Punjab and cannot be ported to any other Telecom Circle. In the present case before this District Forum, the complainant has got the number 8000000069 belonging to another Telecom Circle fraudulently ported in to the Punjab Telecom Circle. The same is against the MNP Policy made by the TRAI for regulating the Porting of the numbers. This fact when discovered by the answering Ops during the regular audit/monitoring, terminated the services of the complainant. The complainant was duly appraised about the same that his services are being terminated as the policies framed by the TRAI with regard to the MNP Policy being contravened. The complainant showing his high headedness and to pressurize the answering Ops is levelling false and frivolous allegations against the employees of the company for achieving his illegal motive. Further, as per the process, the number which is ported in from any other Telecom Operator goes back to the same Telecom Operator once the same in terminated by the recipient operator from its network. The recipient operator cannot retain the number and reallocate the same to any other person as per the MNP Policy. The Consumer Fora does not have jurisdiction to try and decide the dispute between the telecom service provider and its subscriber in view of the well settled law. Further, it is submitted that in view of the clauses set out in the complainant’s Application Form duly filled, signed and accepted by the complainant, this Hon’ble Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and only Mumbai Courts shall have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as per the clause 9(i)(g) of the Customer Application Form. Reply on facts, it is submitted that the answering Ops were well being their right to terminate the services of the complainant in adherence of the said policies. The complainant was duly appraised about the process and the policies every time when he had approached the office of answering Ops. Further, it was the complainant who mis-behaved with the female officials of the answering Ops on his visit to Chandigarh office that another official Mr.Ajay Attri needed to intervene to make the complainant understand. Rather, the complainant with ulterior motive has levelled false and frivolous allegations against the official. In the present case, the complainant knowing with the malafide intentions had flouted the policies laid down by the TRAI. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Ops. At the end, denying all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                Both the parties adduced their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the documents on record very carefully.

6.                Perusal of the record reveals that it is an undisputed fact between the parties that the complainant was holding mobile No.8000000089 under the OPs company and thereafter, he had shifted the said mobile number in Airtel prepaid through the facility of portability. However, thereafter again, the complainant got changed the abovesaid number in OP company through portability. However, the Ops terminated the abovesaid number of the complainant without giving any prior warning/message and without assigning any cogent reason as per the allegations of the complainant.

7.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Ops has strongly contended that since the number was transferred from State to another State which is not permissible under rules made by the TRAI. As such, Ops had no other option except to terminate the mobile number in question.

8.                Perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has furnished his affidavit in evidence as Ex.CA, in which, he has deposed that the Ops had terminated his mobile number without assigning any reason or notice to the complainant. The complainant has also placed on record the copies of bills Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 which were issued by the Ops as a postpaid and the same were paid. Perusal of the evidence of the Ops reveals that Ops have only furnished the affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Garry Rana, its authorized representative in support of their written reply. However, Ops have not placed on record any such documents or any copy of notice or any termination order, from which, it could be presumed that before terminating the connection of the complainant, Ops had ever served any notice upon the complainant by referring any rules, under which, the Ops were not in a position to continue this connection of the complainant or prior to terminate this connection of the complainant nor the Ops have placed on record any copy of rules, from which, Ops have any right or any authority to terminate the connection of the complainant under those rules. So, act of the Ops appears to be arbitrary and illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

9.              In view of the above discussion, we hereby allow this complaint and as a result, direct Ops to restore the mobile number of the complainant without any costs within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Further, Ops are directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant on account of mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant. Order qua compensation and litigation costs be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

     (Babita)                     (R.L.Ahuja)

     Member                    President.   

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:29.05.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.