Haryana

Ambala

CC/320/2015

Harinder Gulati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Teleservice Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Umrish Gandhi

19 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

       Complaint Case No. : 320 of 2015

      Date of Institution    : 10.11.2015

         Date of Decision       : 19.12.2017

 

Harinder Gulati son of late Shri Ram Chand Gulati, aged 58 years resident of House No.1, Adarsh Nagar, Model Town, Ambala City, Haryana-134003.

 

……Complainant.

 

                                                            Versus

 

1.Tata Teleservices Limited, C-125, Industrial Area Phase-8, Mohali, Punjab-160071.

2.Tata Docomo Store, Shop No.9, Jain Nagar, Opposite Petrol Pump, Ambala City, Haryana 134003.

3.Vodafone Digilink Ltd. 173, HSIDC Industrial Area, Sector-3, Karnal, Haryana.

4.Vodafone Store, 1315/1, Block No.7, B.R.Complex, Jain Nagar, Ambala City.

 

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH.D.N.ARORA,PRESIDENT.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA,MEMBER.

                        SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR,MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. Umrish Gandhi, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh.I.S.Gill, counsel for the OP Nos. 1 & 2.                                                                       Sh.P.K.Goel, counsel for OP Nos. 3 & 4.

 

ORDER

 

                        Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant was not satisfied with the services of Tata Docomo due to call failure and network problem, therefore, he requested to port is number to Vodafone vide UPC-TH261147.  Since the complainant was using postpaid connection of TATA Docomo, therefore, on the asking of company he deposited Rs.5,00/- vide receipt No.72531789 on 14.03.2015. The complainant received a massage from Vodafone on 14.03.2015 qua approval of current operator i.e. by Tata Docomo and Vodafone would communicate the porting date and time shortly to him. the complainant received a cheque bearing No.697148 of Rs.51/- dated 18.03.2015 from Tata Docomo as refund which he got deposited in his bank account on 24.03.2015.  The complainant had deposited all the dues and thereafter the connection was activated by Vodafone and he was using the said network. On 16.04.2015, the complainant paid Rs.350/- in the office of Vodafone. The complainant also paid Rs.433/- on 25.05.2015 in the office of OP No.4. On 26.05.2015 Vodafone suspended the mobile number of complainant and when he enquired the matter it came to his knowledge that an amount of Rs.236/- was outstanding against him towards Tata Docomo. The representative of the Vodafone asked the complainant to deposit the receipt qua depositing of amount with Tata Docomo. On 26.05.2015, the complainant deposited the said amount with OP No.2 and deposited the receipt thereof with office of OP No.4. The complainant again visited OP No.4 and came to know about disconnecting of number permanently due to non depositing of Rs.236 with Tata Docomo in time. The complainant visited  OP No.4 where he was intimated that Tata Docomo office would activate the number, therefore, he visited said office but he was asked that no outstanding balance is due and Vodafone is intentionally denying activating the number. The complainant has suffered huge loss as he is a businessman. Thereafter, the complainant received bill of Rs.247.44 for the period from 07.05.2015 to 06.06.2015 despite the fact that mobile was suspended. Thereafter on the very day i.e. 27.05.2015 the complainant applied for a new number of Vodafone i.e. 7027037444 having relationship No.31801746 and he received bill of Rs.560.990 for the period from 22.06.2015 to 21.07.2017 which he had paid on 28.07.2015.  Due to non receiving of old mobile number complainant could not receive the business calls and suffered huge loss. On 01.10.2015, the complainant received a call from OP No.3 on his alternate number that number 9354144447 has never been suspended and a sum of Rs.450/- is outstanding against him and thereafter he again received a call from 7027727514 and it was intimated that an amount of Rs.753/- was shown to be recovered from him. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C14.

2.                                 On notice OPs appeared and filed their separate replies. Op Nos.1 & 2 in their joint reply have submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part as per Section 14 (4) (5) and Section 15 (3) & (4) of Telecommunication Mobile Portability Regulations, 2009, which are reproduced as under:

                        14. Rights and obligations of Donor Operator:-

(4)  In case of non-payment of any outstanding bill issued to the subscriber after the porting request, for the services availed till the disconnection of the mobile number from the network of the Donor Operator, within such time as specified in such bill, the Donor Operator shall give a notice of not less than seven days to the subscriber, notifying him that in case of non-payment within the said notice period, the donor operator shall request the recipient operator to disconnect the ported number.

(5) In case after expiry of such period such subscriber fails to make payments as specified in the notice, the Donor Operator shall communicate the details of such outstanding bills to the recipient operator through the mobile number portability service provider with an advice to take action for disconnecting the ported number.

 

15.Right and obligations of Recipient Operator: 

(3). Where a request is made by the Donor Operator under Sub-regulation (5) of regulation 14 for disconnecting the ported number, the recipient operator shall issue a notice to the concerned subscriber, the period of which shall be not less than seven days and not more than fifteen days, about the request received from the Donor Operator and calling upon such subscriber to produce evidence of having settled such outstanding  dues with the donor operator within such notice period and in case the subscriber produces such evidence of having settled such dues, the Recipient Operator shall not make any further action in pursuance of the notice and shall inform the Donor Operator accordingly through Mobile Number Portability service provider.

(4) In case, before expiry of the period specified in the notice under Sub-regulation (3), the subscriber fails to provide evidence of having settled such outstanding dues with the Donor Operator, the Recipient Operator shall disconnect the mobile number of such subscriber and inform the Mobile Number Portability Service Provider forthwith about the disconnection of such mobile number and request for reversal of such mobile number to the Number Range Holder after expiry of ninety days.            

 

The complainant had applied for porting out on 02.03.2015 and the same was completed on 14.03.2015 and the answering Ops have been dragged into unwarranted litigation. A bill dated 15.04.2015 for Rs.236/- was generated and the complainant was duly intimated about this through SMS dated 14.04.2015  but he did not bother to pay the same which leads to issuance of notification to Donor Operator/OP Nos. 3 & 4 and if they fail discharge their obligation then answering OPs cannot be held liable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 & 2 and they have knowledge about suspension of the number of the complainant. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          Op Nos. 3 & 4 in their joint reply have submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable being barred under Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and is estopped by his own act and conduct. The number of the complainant was ported into Vodafone on 14.03.2015, however, the complainant had paid Rs.350/- on 16.04.2015 being first billing amount.  Nonpayment of outstanding amount of Rs.236/- by the complainant to the donor operator services of the connection number i.e. 9354144447 was disconnected on 26.05.2015 as MNP guidelines.  The services of the mobile number 9354144447 were re-activated on 02.07.2015. Vide SMS dated 02.09.2015, the complainant was asked to make outstanding payment immediately  but he was not aware of the activated services and was informed only on 01.10.2015 post receiving a call on his alternate mobile keeping in view the regular SMS sent by OPs. The mobile number was suspended on 04.09.2015 for non-payment of outstanding bills and same was restored on 19.09.2015 after providing waivers under service gestures and receiving payment of Rs.100 from the complainant. As per Rule No.443 of Indian Telegraph Rules the complainant was bound to make the payment of bills generated by the OP No.3 while raising disputes if any and payment had to be made pending resolution of such disputes. Other contentions made complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavits Annexure RX, Annexure R3/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3.

3.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.

4.                     It is not disputed that the complainant was having postpaid mobile No.9354144447 and the same was originally belonged to IDEA company. It is also not disputed that the number was ported to Vodafone/Op Nos. 3 & 4  lastly  and he used the same about 3 years when it was being controlled by TATA Docomo/OP Nos. 1 & 2  and he was making the bill thereof after porting the same. The complainant had received a massage from Vodafone on dated 11.05.2015 being a consumer of Vodafone a bill of Rs.433/- was due on 25.05.2015 for the bill period 07.04.2015 to 06.05.2015 which was paid by him on 25.05.2015. It is not disputed that Vodafone had suspended the number of the complainant on 26.05.2015 on the ground that a bill for Rs.236/- was outstanding of Op Nos.1 & 2  and the same was not paid by the complainant to the TATA Docomo.  

5.                                 Now, the question arises before this Forum whether OP Nos.3 & 4 can suspend the mobile number in question  without issuing notice as required under Section 15 (3) (4) of Right and obligations of Recipient Operator of Telecommunication Mobile Portability Regulations, 2009.  

6.                                 Perusal of the case file reveals that no such prior notice has ever been issued to the complainant before suspending the mobile number of the complainant which was mandatory as per Section 15 (3) (4) of Right and obligations of Recipient Operator of Telecommunication Mobile Portability Regulations, 2009  by OP Nos. 3 & 4.  It is not disputed that the complainant had deposited the bill of Rs.433/- on 25.05.2015 but on that date the Op No.3 never asked him about outstanding bill of Rs.236/- of TATA Docomo and straight away suspended the mobile number of the complainant.

7.                                 Learned counsel for the OP Nos.3 & 4 has argued that they had sent an SMS on 14.04.2015 to the complainant regarding suspension of the mobile but without any evidence this plea is also not helpful to their case. Learned counsel for the OP Nos. 3 & 4 at the time of arguments, while replying the query qua activation of the number of the complainant, intimated to this Forum that they are unable to activate said number because it has been returned to the original allottee i.e. IDEA company.

8.                                 It is established on the case file that the OP Nos. 3 & 4 have violated the Section 15 (3) (4) of Right and obligations of Recipient Operator of Telecommunication Mobile Portability Regulations, 2009,  which tentamount to indulging in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint against the Op Nos.3 & 4 with costs which is assessed at Rs.3,000/- only because the complainant has not remained the customer of Op Nos. 1 & 2 anymore at the time of filing of complaint and complaint against Op Nos. 1 & 2 is dismissed. Since the Op Nos. 3 & 4 are not in a position to activate the number of the complainant, therefore, this Forum has left with no option but to compensate the complainant. Accordingly, we direct the Op Nos.3 & 4 to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment  within a period of thirty days from the date of receiving the copy of this order failing which the amount would carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 19.12.2017                                                            (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                             (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                        MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                               

 

                                                                                    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                MEMBER