Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/115/2016

M/s Idea Cellular - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sudhir Kumar Batish - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Rameet Bakshi, Adv.

19 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

 

Appeal No.	:	115 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	12.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	19.07.2016

 

 

1. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Registered Office, Suman Tower, Plot Number 18, Sector 11, Gandhinagar – 382011, Gujarat, India.
2. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Corporate Office, Winsor, 5^th Floor, Off CST Road, Near Vidya Nagri Kalina, Santacruz (E) – Mumbai – 400098.
3. The Idea Cellular Ltd., Idea Store, SCO No.495-496, IInd Floor, Sector 35, Chandigarh.

.…Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

1. Sudhir Kumar Batish s/o Sh. S. P. Batish,
2. Ms. Shreya Batish D/o Sh. S. K. Batish,

Both R/o House No.130, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh.

…..Respondents/Complainants.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

 

Ms. Rameet Bakshi, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Harbans Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

 

              This appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.02.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.61 of 2015 was allowed and the Opposite Parties (now appellants) were jointly and severally directed as under:-

“11.          In view of the above discussion, the deficiency on the part of the OPs is writ large, thus the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

a]  To set right wrong portability done by them by porting the numbers of the complainants at their original numbers.

b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainants due to their deficiency in service.  

C]  To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the above awarded amount at (b) at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses.” 

2.             The facts in brief are that the complainants had been using TATA DOCOMO Mobile Nos.92162-21199 (Sudhir Batish)  and 98780-29911 (Shreya Batish) respectively for a long time. On the constant inducement of the Opposite Parties, the complainants agreed to port their number to Idea Cellular and retained their previous mobile numbers with TATA Docomo. While shifting the numbers to Idea Cellular, the mobile number which was used by complainant No.2 was ported in the name of complainant No.1 and mobile number of complainant No.1 was ported in the name of complainant No.2, which was never agreed to by the complainants. The complainants approached Opposite Party No.3 for redressal of their grievance and handed over application alongwith identity proof but to no avail.  Due to wrong porting, limit of talk time was substituted with each other. Service of Complainant No.1, who had to remain in touch with officials in the field, was discontinued and, thus, he suffered heavily due to discontinuity of service. Complainant No.1 again approached Opposite Party No.3 and explained difficulty faced by him due to discontinuation of service.  The Opposite Parties extended limit of Complainant No.1 from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- but again despite paying regular bills, service of Complainant No.1 was discontinued on the ground that payment of previous service provider i.e. TATA Docomo was outstanding despite the fact that the receipts of payments and bills were given to Opposite Party No.3. Complainant No.1 on facing the same problem, again submitted the receipts of payment made to the previous service provider on 27.10.2014 and his mobile service was restored. Complainant No.2 had plan of Rs.149/- and she never opted for any internet service but on 1.11.2014, she received a bill of Rs.899/-, which included Rs.530/- for internet usage. Despite submitting receipts of payment made to previous service provider, on 28.10.2014 with the Opposite Parties, the complainants were again asked to clear their outstanding bill with previous service provider. Ultimately, the complainants served legal notice dated 26.11.2014 upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

3.             When the grievance of the complainants, 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 seeking various reliefs.

4.             The Opposite Parties in their written version denied the allegation of wrongly porting the mobile numbers of the complainants, which were rather ported in accordance with the details mentioned and signed under the “Customer Application Form”. It was stated that the complainants themselves signed and executed Customer Application Forms (CAFs) and being highly educated, the complainants could understand that the same details were part of the Company’s database and could not be disputed thereafter. It was denied that Complainant No.1 approached Opposite Party No.3 on 14.10.2014 and handed over an application with ID proof. Annexure “A” placed on record by the complainants was vehemently denied as the same was not part of their record. It was further stated that rather the complainants failed to furnish valid and clear ID proof despite repeated requests. It was further stated that the complainants did not mention the date of discontinuation of any of the mobile numbers and simply raised the averments.  It was further stated that the mobile service of Complainant No.1 was barred as he failed to clear the outstanding dues of the previous operator i.e. TATA DOCOMO. It was further stated that the said number was restored on the same day i.e. 28.10.2014 after production of all such receipts of payments made to previous operator.  It was denied that the complainants had paid the outstanding dues towards the clearance of the bill of TATA DOCOMO within the time frame and had provided copy of the receipt to Opposite Parties for activation of the said mobile connection; which was in contravention of terms and conditions mentioned under the MNP services as mentioned in ‘Customer Application Forms’ as well as MNP guidelines issued by DOT and TRAI from time to time. It was denied that Complainant No.2 did not avail internet services on her mobile number. In fact, since the activation of mobile number of Complainant No.2, she was provided with the benefit of 100 mb 3G data for 10 days on  29.10.2014 as GPRS fixed validity pack, which was mentioned in bill invoice dated 1.10.2014. It was further stated that since Complainant No.2 exceeded usage of free data, therefore, she was charged Rs.530.12 in the bill. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.             The complainants filed replication where they reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those as contained in the written statement of the Opposite Parties.

6.          The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.           After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as stated above.

8.           Feeling aggrieved, the Opposite Parties have filed the instant appeal.

9.             We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

10.           The controversy involved in the instant appeal has arisen due to wrong portability of mobile numbers of the complainants as mobile number, which was used by Complainant No.2 was ported in the name of Complainant No.1 and mobile number of Complainant No.1 was ported in the name of Complainant No.2. It is the case of the complainants that due to wrong porting of their mobile numbers, limit of talk time was substituted with each other and even mobile service of Complainant No.1 was discontinued on account of which, he suffered.

11.           The appellants have challenged the impugned order on the ground that mobile numbers filled in by the complainants in their respective Customer Application Forms (CAFs) were part of customer information. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants/Opposite Parties that the Forum did not appreciate the fact that both CAFs were signed on different dates. The CAF in the name of Ms. Shreya Batish was signed on 20.08.2014 and accepted on 03.09.2014 whereas CAF in the name of Sh. Sudhir Kumar Batish was signed on 26.08.2014 and accepted on 05.09.2014. It was further stated that the Forum also did not consider the fact that the complainants had signed the payment undertaking in the CAFs and also signed the Tariff Plan and Supplementary Service Forms. It was further submitted that vide email dated 7.11.2014, the complainants had only attached the ID proofs and not the payment receipts. It was further stated that the Forum ignored the fact that the complainants never reverted to the email, whereby the Opposite Parties informed the complainants that the photo IDs were not clear at all. It was further stated that the complainants were adamant in not providing the ID proofs, which were mandatory for change of names and they did not do so even before the Forum during the pendency of the complaint.

12.           No doubt, there was wrong porting of the numbers of Complainant No.1 and Complainant No.2. Perusal of record also reveals that non-furnishing of proof regarding clearance of the outstanding dues towards the payment of mobile services of the previous operator, led to barring of services. It is also evident from record that the wrong porting could be corrected on submission of fresh documentation/ID Proofs by the respondents/complainants, but the issue remained pending despite issuance of email dated 07.11.2014. During pendency of the appeal, Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties again submitted that the appellants/Opposite Parties were still ready to activate Mobile No.9216221199 in the name of Shri S. K. Batish, which was activated in the name of Ms.                          Shreya Batish, daughter of Sh. S. K. Batish but that                was only possible on submission of fresh documentation/             ID Proofs by the respondents/complainants. On agreeing to the                       same by the respondents/complainants now, the main                    grievance stands resolved.  Had the respondent(s) cooperated in   furnishing    fresh documents, the matter would have been settled much earlier. Nevertheless, the respondents suffered due to negligence of appellants/Opposite Parties.

13.           In the face of aforesaid circumstances, relief granted by the Forum by way of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses is somewhat on the higher side and the same needs to be suitably reduced. The compensation and the litigation expenses awarded by the Forum are, therefore, reduced from Rs.10,000/- and Rs.7,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. To this extent, the impugned order passed by the Forum needs modification.

14.           No other point was raised by the Counsel for the parties.

15.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted. The impugned order passed by the Forum is modified to the extent that the amounts of compensation and litigation expenses, awarded by the Forum, are reduced to Rs.5,000/- each. With the modification aforesaid, the rest of the order passed by the Forum shall remain intact.  

16.           Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

17.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

July  19, 2016.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 Ad