A-693/2017

21-8-2024

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Heard from respondent. Appellant not present.  

2.  It is the case of complainant is that, initially he had SIM card bearing No.9743165870 issued by Idea Cellular Ltd. Later on, he opted for porting of the said Idea from appellant’s network, accordingly the said number was ported to this appellant’s network on 22-7-2012, when the SIM card was issued he inserted to his mobile number where the SIM card was not activated. Later on he came to know the said mobile number was sold to some other person, when the complainant asked for retain of the same number, the appellant did not. Hence, he approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought for return of the same number.

3. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to return the same number and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Further District Commission also directed the appellant to pay penalty of Rs.10,000/- to the Legal Aid Account of the Consumer Department.

4. The appellant has aggrieved by the said order before this Commission.

5. Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, this appellant had filed written version has only a take defence that, the complaint is not maintainable before the District Commission as it was governed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Authority. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

6. Further on perusal of the appeal memo also we noticed no reasons are assigned for selling of the mobile number of the complainant to one Mr.Adiveppa Metry. It is bounden duty on the part of this appellant to provide the same number which the complainant intended to port from Idea Cellular Ltd. It is clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in selling the mobile number of the complainant to some unknown person. The District Commission after noticing all these facts rightly appreciated the documents produced and allowed the complaint.  

7. We do not find any irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission. At the same we do not find any valid grounds to set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Commission. As such the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 

The impugned order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bijapura in CC.No.74/2013 is confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.

Member                                             Judicial Member