IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 8th day of April, 2022.
Filed on 07.02.2020
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar. BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. C.K.Lekhamma .B.A, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.39/2020
between
Complainants:- Opposite party:-
1. Dr.G.Samuel (Secretary, Human 1. The Authorized Signatory
Rights Protection Council) Uthradom Communications
Valyaparambil, Mankamkuzhi.P.o Idea Agency, Pulimoodu Jn.
Mavelikara, Alappuzha. Mavelikara
Phone No.9349149977 (Exparte)
2. The Authorized Signatory
M2 Communications, Vodafone
Idea Ltd, O.N.K. Junction
Kayamkulam-2
(Exparte)
3. The Authorized Signatory
Idea Mobile, Telecommunication
Service, Post Office Junction
Idappally, Ernakulam, Kochi-24
(George V. Thomas)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
Complainant is having a mobile connection with No. 9349149977 issued by M/s Vodafone. Since the service was poor he ported the same to M/s Idea mobile. On 17/1/2020 it was disconnected and on 18/1/2020 complainant contacted 1st opposite party M/s Uthradam Communications who ported the number. It was informed that the balance amount was NIL. When contacted again it was informed that Rs.275/- is outstanding to M/s Vodafone and if the amount is paid re-connection will be given and accordingly Rs.275/- was paid. Even after payment of the amount since the connection was not available, 1st opposite party informed to contact M/s Vodafone who disconnected the same. When contacted with 3rd opposite party M/s Idea mobile it was informed that since complainant is having 10 connections it was disconnected. When complainant reached idea shown room at Trivandrum it was informed that such a number is not available in their system. Thereafter complainant filed a complaint against 1st opposite party before Mavelikkara Police. During police investigation it was informed that it was a mistake and the connection was restored on 18/1/2020 during night.
2. The custodian of complainant’s mobile connection is Idea Company and it is not known how Vodafone Company can disconnect the connection without informing the complainant. The act of the opposite parties disconnecting the phone without valid reason and informing the complainant is against consumer rules. Hence the complaint is filed for realizing an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation from M/s Idea Company for disconnecting the mobile phone for 2 days.
3. Opposite party 1 and 2 remained exparate. 3rd opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
Complainant has filed another complaint as CC.No.133/2020 before this Commission with same allegations. The pleadings and allegations in both cases are one and the same. The said case was adjudicated and disposed on 29/9/2001 and the opposite party has complied the order. Since the subject matter of this case is already subjected to judicial scrutiny and disposed on merit this complaint is not maintainable.
4. Opposite parties provide normal acceptable standard of service to their subscribers. The terms and conditions of the subscription agreed by the complainant is binding him. Telecom disputes are subject to adjudication by the experts technical agency of adjudicating authority as per Indian Telegraph Act & TRAI Act 1997. The technical over tones in this matter could be confirmed through expert adjudication alone.
5. M/s Vodafone India Ltd and Vodafone mobile services Ltd merged with into Idea cellular Ltd as per the order of the National company law tribunal w.e.f 31/8/2018. As per the customer application form submitted to the company the subscriber of connection number 9349149977 is complainant Mr. George Samuel w.e.f 7/11/2019. Complainant was erstwhile post paid customer under Vodafone network and had an amount of Rs. 274.13/- as outstanding usage charges at the time of porting into idea. Customer failed to clear outstanding charges with the donor operator at the time of porting the number to Idea net work. As per mobile number portability regulations in the event of any outstanding balance due to the donor (original operator) Vodafone in this case, the recipient operator (this opposite party) shall be barred the services unless such as outstanding has been cleared by the customer within due date and the payment receipt is submitted to the recipient operator.
6. Opposite parties disconnected service connection on 17/1/2020 and subsequently on 18/3/2020 on getting instruction from the donor/ service provider, on 2ndJanuary 2020 that there is bill outstanding under Vodafone network and therefore without clearing the same the service cannot be continued as per MNP regulations. The fact that the customer had subsequently cleared outstanding payment was not communicated this opposite party until 28/3/2020 by which date the subscriber connection had turned and re turned to the original owner of the subscriber connection M/s Reliance Communications. The burden of proving clearance of the outstanding amount due to the donor network (Vodafone) is on the complainant and the proof of such remittance has to be submitted to the recipient operator (Idea) for continuing seam less service with the operator. However on raising complaint by the customer as an initial nonpayment disconnection on 17th January and as a gesture of goodwill the disputed connection was re-activated on 20/1/2020 even in the absence of confirmation of receipt of payment by M/s Vodafone.
7. Even after reconnection customer failed to furnish the proof of payment of its outstanding dues. Therefore as per the MNP process as prescribed by the MNP regulations on the 89th day of porting the number got disconnected and reversed back to the original operator M/s Reliance communications. There was lockdown in March 2020 on account of Covid-19 infection.
8. The allegation that after clearing outstanding payment the calls made by the complainant was intentionally not answered are false. The statement of the complainant on his visit to retail touch point in Trivandrum is false. The averment regarding police complaint is also false. This opposite party has not received any e-mail communication.
9. The statement of the complainant that this opposite party is the custodian of his mobile is false. Complainant does not have any cause of action to institute the complaint. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. No loss injury or hardship has been caused or occasion to the complainant on account of this opposite party and hence this opposite party is not liable to pay compensation. There is no truth or bonafides on the part of the complainant and hence this false, frivolous and vexatious complaint may be dismissed with cost.
10. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration :-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties as alleged?
2. Whether the complaint is barred by resjuidcata?
3.Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount or Rs.5 lakhs as compensation from the 3rd opposite party as prayed for?
4. Reliefs and cost.?
11. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 from the side of the complainant. Opposite parties has not adduced any oral evidence Ext.B1 and B2 were marked during the cross examination of PW1.
12. PW1, the complainant was having a mobile phone as no.9349149977 issued by Vodafone. Since the service was not proper he ported the same to 3rd opposite party M/s Idea mobile. However on 17/1/2020 during night the connection was disconnected and on enquiry it was revealed that there was no balance in the account. On further enquiry it was revealed that an amount of Rs.275/- is outstanding with the previous service provider M/s Vodafone. Inspite of enquiry the phone was not connected and thereafter he filed a complaint before the Mavelikara police on 18/1/2020 at 9.10 PM and the connection was restored. Hence he has filed this complaint on a contention that he was unable to use the phone for 2 days and claiming a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. He has also sought the intervention of this Commission for providing proper service by various mobile service providers. Opposite party 1 and 2 remained exparte. 3rd opposite party filed a version mainly admitting that the mobile number of PW1 was ported into their company. According to them an amount of Rs.274.13/- was outstanding to the donor (original operator) M/s Vodafone. Since the said amount was not paid the connection was disconnected. It is as per regulations of TRAI regarding mobile portal. However on getting information the connection was restored and hence there is no negligence or deficiency on their part.
13. It was further contented that complainant had filed another complaint as CC/133/2020 with the same allegations in which the present 3rd opposite party was one of the opposite party. The said case was adjudicated and disposed by this Commission as per order dtd. 29/9/2021 and so this complaint is hit by resjudicata. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Complainant got examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 and A2. During his cross examination Ext.B1 and B2 were marked. 3rd opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence.
14 Sec. 11 Code of Civil Procedure defines resjudicata as follows:-
“Res judicata :- No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.”
15. Ext.B1 is the copy of complaint in CC/133/2020 and Ext.B2 is the copy of order dtd. 29/9/2021 in the same case. In Ext.B1 complaint authorized officer Idea customer care was the 1st opposite party and Smt . Bindhu Gopal, Appellete Authority, Idea Kerala Circle Office was the 2nd opposite party. In this complaint the authorized signatory Ideal mobile telecommunication service is the 3rd opposite party which is the only opposite party contesting the case. On a perusal of Ext.B1 complaint it is seen that the allegations are one and the same. In Ext.B1 complaint it is stated that on 17/1/2020 the connection was disconnected and it was restored only on 18/1/2020. Thereafter it is stated that as a vengeance of filing CC/39/2020(this case) on 19/2/2020 the phone was disconnected and it was restored after 2 weeks. The relief sought in this case is compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for disconnecting the phone for 2 days. The relief sought in Ext.B1 complaint is Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for \disconnecting the pone for about 2 weeks. On a perusal of Ext.B2 order it is seen that in Para 14 disconnection on 17/1/2020 was also considered. By Ext.B2 order complainant was allowed to realize an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as cost. Since the matter in issue in this complaint was considered while passing Ext.B2 order in CC/133/2020 as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd opposite party the complaint is hit by res judicata. It is seen that the grievance of the complainant was redressed by Ext.B2 order by awarding compensation and cost. In said circumstances complainant is not entitled for any relief in this case. As stated in Ext.B2 order relief sought against all mobile companies etc are beyond the scope of this Commission and the complainant can approach appropriate authorities to redress such grievances. Hence these points are found against the complainant.
16. Point No.4:-
In the result complaint is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 8th day of April, 2022.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - G.Samuel (Complainant)
Ext.A1 - P.D.Payment Receipt dtd. 17/1/2020
Ext.A2 - Copy of Receipt
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of complaint in CC/133/2020
Ext.B2 - Copy of Order dtd. 29/9/2021
//True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
