BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

Monday, the 29^th day of September, 2014

                                              CC 42 of 2013                                

Between:

Mohammad Ayub S/o Mohammad Ahmed,

Aged: 23 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 15-101/1,

Vandanapuri Colony, Iskebai H/o Ameenpur village,

Mandal Patancheru, Dist. Medak.    

                                                                                                ……Complainant                       

                   And

1. The Executive Customers Care, Idea Cellular Limited.,

Sangareddy Town, Dist. Medak.

2. M/s IDEA Cellular Limited, through its Manager,

III Floor, K.L.K. Estate, Fateh Maidan Road,

Basheer Bagh Hyderabad – 500 001.                          ……Opposite parties

This case came up for final hearing before us on 15.09.2014 in the presence of Sri Md. Abdul Rub, advocate for complainant and Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Advocate for opposite parties no. 1 & 2, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per se Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member)

                   The case of the complainant, which has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in brief, is that he, Mohammad Ayub, is a subscriber of Idea Cellular Net work. He is a prepaid subscriber having the phone no: 951515786. He submits that his incoming and outgoing calls were blocked and he complained to their customer care executive and was informed to replace the SIM card. The opposite parties issued him a new SIM card bearing nos. 89910 73540, 130488 76002 h5 SYS 1303. Although the SIM was replaced the incoming and outgoing calls from his mobile were blocked and he approached the concerned executive with his grievance but the problem was not attended to.

                   He has suffered greatly as his deals in the real estate business are through phone calls from/to customers. Although the opposite parties were issued a legal notice, they have not addressed his problem. Therefore he has filed this present complaint against the opposite parties directing them to replace the SIM card and award a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.

2.              The opposite party no. 2 filed their counter by contending that the complainant’s allegations are false and baseless. They submit that on 15^th June, 2013, the complainant approached them and requested for a SIM change and they issued a new SIM card which was duly activated. On 24^th June the complainant requested for port out from Idea and switched over to Vodafone as on 05^th July, 2013.

                   They also contend that the complainant failed to make Vodafone a necessary party to this complaint and therefore the complaint ought to be dismissed. Since the complainant has voluntarily opted ‘port out’ and his request was duly processed, there has been no deficiency in service on their part and they are not responsible to pay any damages as alleged by the complainant. Hence they seek that the complaint be dismissed.

3.                The complainant filed his evidence affidavit as PW.1 and marked exhibits A1 & A2 in support of his claim. The Deputy General Manager – Legal, Idea Cellular – Mr. B. Arun Madhav filed his evidence affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties. No exhibits were filed in their defense.

                   Both sides did not file their written arguments.

Heard.

4.               Now the point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so, to what relief?

Point:

5.                It is not in dispute that the complainant, Mohammad Ayub was a prepaid subscriber of Idea Cellular service net work and bearing the (Mobile) number 951515786. The dispute is regarding the blockage of incoming and outgoing calls from his mobile number. The complainant states that he approached their customer care executive – i.e. the opposite party no. 1 with his complaint and was advised to replace the old SIM card with a new one. This is not disputed by the opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2 in their written version state that the complainant requested for a change of SIM and they issued a new one and it was activated. The opposite party no. 2 however deny that the calls on his number were blocked. These according to them are allegations made by the complainant without any evidence.

6.                The opposite party no. 2 further submit that on 24^th June 2013, the complainant requested for “port out” from Idea and had voluntarily generated a unique porting code (UPC) as per the mobile number portability (MNP) mechanism and submitted the UPC and other documents to M/s Vodafone. Therefore the complainant became the subscriber/customer of M/s Vodafone, as on 5^th July, 2013.

7.                The complainant filed two documents in his defense. Ex. A1 is the legal notice, issued to opposite party no. 2 and this letter is dated 10.08.2013. In his complaint, the complainant has failed to give the details as to when the incoming/outgoing calls were blocked. There are no dates given. He merely alleges that his calls were blocked despite the change of SIM card. The opposite party no. 2 however has given the dates in their written version. They do not deny the change of SIM card and given date is 15^th June 2013. The legal notice is dated 10.08.2013, almost 45 days after changing his service provider.

8.                The opposite parties assert that the complainant ought to have made M/s Vodafone necessary party to his complaint as he is their client. The legal notice was issued to them when he was no longer using their services.

                   Ex.A2 proves that the complainant was using IDEA as his service provider and he is a prepaid subscriber and his dated 23.08.2012.

9.                The fact that he was a prepaid subscriber of IDEA – is not denied but that he has changed the service provider a year later is not revealed by the complainant at all. Ex. A2 also has an attested copy of his PAN card and Driving Licence, which do not strengthen his case.

10.              The complainant did not provide any evidence to prove that his incoming/outgoing calls were disturbed when he was using idea cellular. There is no complaint number quoted or email interaction with the opposite parties to prove his complaint. Moreover, having changed his service provider, he should have addressed his problem to M.s Vodafone. In the absence of sufficient evidence and lack of clarity, the complaint is dismissed. The point is answered accordingly.

11.               In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

                    Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the 29^th day of September, 2014.

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                            WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite party:-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainants:-                                               For opposite party:-

     Sd/-                                                                Sd/-

MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT

Copy to:

1. The Complainant
2. The Opp.Parties
3. Spare copy