Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/960/2021

Ms Supreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Ramneet Kaur, Shiti Jain Dutt.

01 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/960/2021
Date of Institution	:	20/12/2021
Date of Decision	:	01/08/2024

 

                                       

                       

 

 

 

Ms.Supreet Kaur w/o Sh.Nimratjit Singh r/o H.No.3012, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh -160022.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., C-135, Industrial Area, Sector 74, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab(140308) through Branch Manager/Director/Authorized Signatory.

2.     Bharti Airtel Ltd., Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Road, IT Park, Chandigarh -160001 through Branch Manager /Director/Authorized Signatory.

…. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
PRESENT:-
	Ms.Ramneet Kaur & Ms.Shiti Jain Dutt, Counsel for the complainant. Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi, Counsel for OP No.2 OP No.1 exparte.

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.         The complainant had filed the present complaint alleging therein that she was subscriber of vanity mobile No.9872810000 of OP-2/Bharti Airtel for about 6-7 years ago, which was later on ported to OP No.1-Jio about one year ago.  In months of August-Sept.2020 all her family members were down with Covid-19 except the complainant.  Unfortunately, the father of the complainant could not survive and passed away.  There was no payment due till 20^th January, 2021. On 22.02.2021, she received bill of Rs.334.79 for the period from 21.01.2021 to 20.02.2021 payable by 10.03.2021. She had to travel to Dubai in March, 2021 and therefore, she has forgotten to make payment of the bill. Thereafter, she made efforts to make the payment of the bill via online but somehow it could not be credited.  The payment of Rs.500/- was made and debited from her account but it was not credited to the required account.  She was abroad during that time and therefore, the mobile number could not be used but when she came back to India, she tried to use the number but the same was found to be deactivated.  The complainant visited the OPs number of times to get activate the number which was registered with her bank account and other important institutions but to no effect. She received e-mail dated 24.06.2021 from OP No.2 vide which they demanded Rs.1.00 lakh to reactivate the same number which she had been using for so many years.  Hence, this complaint seeking directions to the OPs to reactivate the mobile No.9878810000 without any extra charges and compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.         Despite due service through proclamation, OP No.1 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.07.2022.
3.         In its written version, OP No.2 stated that the complainant had filed the complaint just to unnecessarily harass it as there was no privity of contract with the complainant because she became the customer of OP No.1 by porting the mobile number. It has further been stated that OP No.1 had sent the number back to the owner company i.e. OP No.2 as per the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations 2009 on 20.03.2018.  It has further been stated that the mobile No.98728 10000 which is a vanity number can be reactivated after the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- along with GST and it was mandatory to submit the subscriber enrolment form with original adhaar card, photo ID, address proof and passport size photo for allotment of the mobile number as per the telecom rules. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant filed replication to the written reply of OP No.2 and controverted their stand and reiterating his own.
5.         The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
6.         We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
7.         From the perusal of the documentary evidence and pleadings of the parties, it is observed that the complainant was having the vanity mobile No.9872810000 of OP-2-Bharti Airtel which later on ported to OP No.1-Jio. Annexure A-4 is a copy of bill dated 21.02.2021 issued by OP No.1 to the complainant for the billing cycle from 21.01.2021 to 20.02.2021 of Rs.334.79P. The due date for payment as mentioned in the bill was 10.03.2021 and thereafter, the complainant has to pay Rs.434.79P.  In the said bill, it was nowhere mentioned that if the payment is not made by the due date or after due date, the said number would be de-activated. It is also observed that before deactivation of the said vanity number no prior notice was ever sent/served by the OPs upon the complainant and as such the deactivation of the said vanity number without prior notice and demand of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of activation of the number by OP No.2 amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
8.         OP No.2 has itself admitted in its written version that it is vanity mobile No.98728-10000 and the same can be activated on payment of Rs.1,00,000/- along with GST. It means that the vanity mobile No.9872810000 is worth Rs.1.00 lakh which the OPs have wrongfully retained. Hence, the complainant is either entitled to re-allotment of this number i.e. mobile No.9872810000 or in the alternative, to get the compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh from the OPs.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed to re-allot the said vanity mobile No.98728-10000 to the complainant on receipt of Rs.434.79 without any charges towards payment of the bill (Annexure A-4) from the complainant or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards the aforesaid vanity number as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant.
10.           This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally, within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
11.         The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
12.         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 01/08/2024 hg
	(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER