Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/761/2014

Aseem Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Communications Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Abhinandan Pandhi

03 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/761/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	20/11/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	03/08/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aseem Grover son of Sh. Sanjeeva Grover, resident of House No.3275, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

(1)  Reliance Communications Limited, 1^st Floor, Tower-F, DLF Building, Plot No.2, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh – 160101, through its Manager. 

 

(2)  Syniverse Technologies India Pvt. Limited, DLF Building No.5, Tower-A, 15^th Floor, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana.

 

(3)  Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh – 160101, through its Manager. 

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS. SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Abhinandan Pandhi, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.1	:	Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.2	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.3	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

]

 

 

          The facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the present Complaint are conceptualized hereinafter. The complainant has been using telecom services of Opposite Party No.1, on his mobile No.91-9872211751, for his business purpose. It has been averred that since there was a problem of reception of signal and other services, the complainant decided to avail of the telecom services of Opposite Party No.3, instead of Opposite Party No.1. Consequently, the complainant made a “Port out” request to Opposite Party No.1, confirmation of which was also sent to him. It has been stated that despite clearing all the dues, in respect of the services availed of from Opposite Party No.1, the “Port Out” request of the complainant was rejected, a number of times, on account of non-payment of outstanding bill. Ultimately, the “Port Out” request code number RP412486 expired, as a result whereof, the complainant had to undergo the whole procedure again, to get telecom services of Opposite Party No.3. It has been further stated that the complainant had visited the office of the Opposite Parties, a number of times, for redressal of his grievance, but to no avail. Eventually a legal notice was also served upon Opposite Party No.1, but to no avail.  It has been further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, claiming various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the Complainant had generated the UPC code but the details had not been uploaded by the Recipient Operator due to which neither the request had been moved to MCH nor to the answering Opposite Party. It has been asserted that whenever the documents are submitted by the Customer to the recipient operator the said customer receives alerts by SMS informing him about the progress of the application status. In the present case, the Complainant had not initiated any process after generating the UPC code and there was no way that the answering Opposite Party could reject his request when the same had not been received by them from MCH. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Opposite Party No.2 in its reply while admitting the factual aspects of the case has pleaded that due to incomplete bill payment or non-payment of due bill amount of his Mobile No.91-9872211751 the first “port out” request of the Complainant was rejected on 25.09.2014. On second porting request, the Complainant had not received any correspondence from the Opposite Party No.1 till the last date of validity of the new porting request Code No.RP-412486 despite repeated requests from the Complainant and Opposite Party No.3 and on 15.10.2014 the Opposite Party No.1 blatantly refused and denied any such request made for “port out” from the Complainant’s side. Thus, the Opposite Party No.1 had not forwarded the “port out” request of the Complainant further and without clearance from the Opposite Party No.1 “porting request” would not be completed. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.     Opposite Party No.3 in its reply has pleaded that when a port in request is received it is sent to the MNP Coordinator i.e. Opposite Party No.2 for clearances. It has been asserted that clearances from the parent operator are must as it has to release the number from its network for porting in to new network. It is the responsibility of the subscriber to clear dues of his bill on regular basis. It has been submitted that under the guidelines, any Subscriber who intends to port out to any other mobile service provider, from his original service provider, he/she has to send a port out request SMS on 1900 number. The request can only be sent from the mobile which is intended to be ported out. Once the request is made than the MNP Service Provider, issues a Unique porting Code (UPC). It has been submitted that whenever a request for such port in is received than the Subscriber has to fill new enrollment form, along with required documents as applicable for fresh activation of a new mobile number. The allotted/ generated UPC of a subscriber can be rejected for reasons such as user should be over 90 days on existing network, outstanding dues need to be clear, there should not be any Change of Ownership/ Fraud, Contractual obligation, legal cases filed/issue, Natural Calamities and Wrong UPC. It has been pleaded that since the number in question was not cleared by the parent operator due to pendency of dues, the number was never received in the network of the answering Opposite Party. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

6.     The Complainant has also filed separate replications to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 3, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 3 have been controverted.

 

7.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

8.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, along with their written arguments.

9.     It is observed that the portability request by the Complainant was made twice. For the first time the port out request was made on 14.09.2014. It was observed by the Opposite Party No.1 that some dues were outstanding which were paid by the Complainant. It is also seen that the outstanding bill (Annexure C-3) was cleared on 15.09.2014 (Annexure C-4). There appears to be no other genuine reason on the part of Opposite Party No.1 to avoid processing of the port out request dated 14.09.2014 of the Complainant. The second port out request of the Complainant was made on 29.09.2014, which was also not processed by the Opposite Party No.1. On 27.02.2015 during the pendency of this Consumer Complaint, the Opposite Party No.1 agreed for interim relief to the Complainant by processing/ porting out his request and accordingly, the port out request was completed as confirmed on 11.03.2015. We are of the opinion that it should have been appropriate on the part of Opposite Party No.1 to process the port out request, immediately, on receipt of pending amount/arrears on 15.09.2014 and inaction on the part of Opposite Party No.1 constitutes deficiency in service on its part. 

 

10.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that only Opposite Party No.1 is deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to:-

 

[a]  To pay Rs.15,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[b] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

          The Complaint fails qua Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.

 

11.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [b], from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid. 

 

12.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03^rd August, 2015                                          

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

           Sd/-                      

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

“Dutt”                                                                                            MEMBER