BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

    29^th DAY OF JULY 2019

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Santhosh Thampi

S/o P.C.Thampi,

Aged about 43 years

R/at No.203, Faba Home Geddalahalli Main Road, Kothanur Post,

Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru-77.

By Adv.Sri.R.Harsha

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

1. M/s.Reliance Communications Having its Regd.,

Corporate Head Office at:

‘H’ Block, 1^st Floor,

Dhirubhai Ambani

Knowledge City,

Navi Mumbai-400709, Maharashtra.

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory

Ex-parte

2. M/s.Reliance Jio

Having its Regd.,

Corporate Head Office at:

Reliance Corporate Park,

No.8 A Wing, 1^st Floor,

5 TTC Industrial Area,

Thane Belapur Road, Ghansoli,

Navi Mumbai – 400701.

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory

3. M/s.Reliance Jio

Reliance Jio Infocomm ltd.,

RMZ Icon, No.51,

Palace Road,

Vasanth Nagar,

Bengaluru-51.

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory

By Adv.M/s.Shiva & Shiva Advocates

ORDER

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

The Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party No.1, 2 & 3 (herein after called as OPs) to reissue/transfer the network connection for SIM in the working condition; to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation; Rs.75,000/- as costs and to award such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

The Complainant submits that, he has obtained a postpaid SIM connection for Fancy Mobile Device Number (MDN) bearing No.88800 00888 purchased from OP.1 and also paid Rs.20,000/- as charge for the said number and subscribed the SIM connection on 18.09.10 at Bengaluru. The Complainant further submits that, from the year 2010 till Nov 2017, he regularly paid the bills. After paying Rs.2,600/- for the bill of Oct 2017, on 07.11.17, the services had stopped without any intimation. After enquiry, the Complainant came to know that, OPs have “ported out the MDN No.88800 00888”. On repeated requests, they advised to approach OP.2 for further clarification. But OP.2 least bothered to advice and resolve the issue with regarding to the false port carried in favour of a third person without the consent of primary owner/consumer i.e. the Complainant. In this context, the Complainant lodged the complaint before Police Commissioner, Cyber Crime Branch, Bengaluru. The authorized agents of OPs said that, their executive managers have fraudulently sold the Fancy number by misusing their authorized powers as it is a private corporate franchise and having total control over the same for connection and disconnection. They have totally involved in the alleged port, wherein no UPC code was sent to the Complainant and without the consent and verification of the UPC code, they cannot carry out the port in favour of some other person, wherein in a lawfull port the primary user will always be retained as the secondary customer though it is ported out in favour of other corporate tele-communication, therefore the port carried in favour of one Sri.Yogesh, resident of M.P. India. As soon as, the Complainant came to know the theft of UPC code and illegal port out, he has lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police to take action against OPs. No action taken by the OPs for the emails sent by the Complainant. Hence, Complainant sent legal notice dtd.27.11.17 to TRAI. But no action was taken. Hence this complaint.

3. After issuance of notice, OP.1 not appeared before this forum, hence placed exparte. OP.2 & 3 appeared before this forum. Though prescribed time given, OP.2 & 3 failed to file their version. Hence, IA filed by OP.2 & 3 to give permission to file version was rejected on 02.08.18. Against this, OP preferred an RP.76/2019 before Hon'ble State Commission and the same was came to be dismissed at the stage of admission for the reason ‘no proper reasons are mentioned to condone the delay.’ Hence, the version filed by the OP.2 & 3 not taken in to consideration. 

4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents. The Complainant also filed written arguments. We have gone through the available materials on record. Heard.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?

2. What order?

        6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative

Point No.2:- As per final order

REASONS

7. Point No.1: We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint. Since OP.2 & 3 have not filed version well within time, hence negated. As against the said order, OP.2 & 3 filed R.P.76/2019 which was also came to be dismissed. Hence, the version filed by OP.2 & 3 is not considered. The relief i.e. sought for by the Complainant is to direct the OPs to reissue/transfer the network connection for SIM bearing MDN.88800-00888 (hereinafter referred to as the said mobile number) in favour of the Complainant with compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- and cost of Rs.75,000/-.

8. Looking to the contents of the complaint, it is evident that, the said mobile number has been ported in favour of one Sri.Yogesh, resident of M.P. India arbitrarily. On going through the available materials on record, further it reveals that, in respect of the said mobile number, the Complainant is not due to pay the post paid bills raised by the OPs. When the Complainant is prompt in paying the raised bills by the OPs, the ported out of the said mobile number is not only arbitrary but also illegal. Hence, this forum has no other go except to direct the OPs to reissue/transfer the network connection for the said mobile number in favour of the Complainant in working condition within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In respect of the relief of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, undue hardship and loss of connectivity relating to business etc., is negated since no better particulars are produced in respect of loss in business. Anyhow, the litigation of cost is fixed to Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly we answered point No.1 partly in the affirmative.

          9. Point No.2: In the result, we passed the following:         

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

2. The OP.1, 2 & 3 jointly and severally liable to reissue/transfer the network connection for the said mobile number i.e. 88800-00888 in favour of the Complainant in working condition within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order along with cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 29^th day of July 2019)

        MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant dated.16.04.18

Sri.Santhosh Thampi

Copies of Documents produced by the Complainant:

            MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT