Telangana

Khammam

CC/17/2016

Singarapu Kiran Kumar, S/o. Mallaiah, Age 32 years, Occu Private Employee at Global Innov Source Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Khammam, R/o.H.No.5-1-287, Street No.9, Kaviraj Nagar, Khammam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Idea Cellular Limited, 3rd Floor, KLK Estate, Fathemaidan Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Talluri Dilip Chowdary

28 Aug 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM

Dated this, the 28^th  day of August, 2018.

          CORAM:     1. Sri. P. Madhav Raja, _{B.Sc., M.Li.Sc., LL.M.,}– President

2. Sri. R. Kiran Kumar_{, B.Sc., LL.M.} – Member

C.C. No. 17/2016

Between:

Singarapu Kiran Kumar, S/o. Mallaiah,

Age: 32 years, Occu: Private Employee at

Global Innov Source Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Khammam,

R/o.H.No.5-1-287, Street No.9, Kaviraj Nagar,

Khammam Corporation & District, Telangana State.       …Complainant

And

1. The Manager, Idea Cellular Limited, 3^rd Floor,

KLK Estate, Fathemaidan Road, Basheerbagh,

Hyderabad, Telangana State – 500 001.

2. The Manager Idea Cellular Limited, Suman Towers,

Flat No.18, Sector 11, Gandhi Nagar, 382 011,

Gujarat, India, Regd. Office.

3. The Manager, Idea Cellular Limited,

Sri Jahitha Communications (Khm012),

H.No. 6-2-4, Wyra Road,

Khammam, Telangana State – 507 001.

    4.  The Manager, Vodafone South Ltd,

CIN No: U74899DL1995PLO74451),

6^th Floor, Varun Towers II, Begumpet,

Hyderabad. T.State – 500 016.

    5.   The Manager, Vodafone India Ltd.,

Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013, India.

    6.   The Manager, Vodafone Store, Khammam,

H.No.8-3-214/A, Wyra Road,

Khammam, Telangana State.

    7.   The Manager, Idea Cellular Store,

Khammam, Door No.8-3-200,

Z.P. Centre, Khammam, Telangana State – 507 001.

                                                                         …Opposite parties

This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of          Sri T.Dilip Chowdary, Advocate for Complainant;  and of Sri Y.Srinivas Rao, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2; and of Sri G.Kanakalingeshwara Rao, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.4 and 6;  Notice of Opposite Party No.3 served and called absent; Notice of Opposite Party No.5 not returned; and Notice of Opposite Party No.7 returned unserved; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following order;

O R D E R

(Per Sri. R. Kiran Kumar, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

1.       The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is resident of Khammam Corporation, he had obtained a mobile service connection at Ideal Cellular Ltd, by submitting his proof of identity, address proof and all what so ever concern an and obtained the prepaid Idea service connection No.9666666789 vide Sim No.89910725701431400317 on                    20-12-2014 and utilizing the services of such mobile connection from time to time by paying money through recharge cards and e-recharge facility.  The complainant submitted that on 25-08-2015, when the complainant was on the way from Miyapur to Hyderabad at about 04.00 P.M. the mobile screen showed that his sim registration was failed, immediately the complainant made a complaint to the customer care Executive from another mobile stating about his inconvenience, interruption through the service provider on his sim from his connection No.9666666789.  The Customer Care people advised the complainant to switch OFF and ON the phone after 10 minutes and then everything is fine.  After 10 minutes again switch on the phone, but the mobile number haven’t been activated and same problem repeated continuously.  The complainant also submitted that on 26-08-2015 his friend on making  call to him on the said number, the number of complainant told that this number 9666666789 is been lifted by some unknown person, thus the complainant got suspicion and got a doubt that his mobile number has been misappropriated and allotted to some other  person.  The complainant further submitted that on 27-08-2015 he approached the Opposite Party No.3 regarding the problem, the Executive of Opposite Party No.3 suggested to call the customer care once again.  The complainant further submitted that as per the advice of Opposite Party No.3, he again submitted his identity proof to the Opposite Party No.3 on that they allotted sim No.89910735101419256096 on the regular phone No.9666666789, the mobile number got activated and continued the services till 03-09-2015.

2.       That on 03-09-2015, the complainant received a message from Opposite Party No.6, wherein “Hello, you are porting IA962145 dated:            03-September-2015 has been approved by your current operator we will communicate the porting date time shortly”.  The complainant further submitted that on 04-09-2015 the outgoing and incoming services were barred, again the complaint made call to the Opposite Party No.2, they stated that “ as your connection is been put to conversion to post paid, the outgoing was barred, and will be activated within 2 days.  On 05-09-2015 the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.7 and enquired about the SMS, they relied that “As you put porting to the mobile number 9666666789 from idea service provider to Vodafone service provider, you obtained such message”, and the mobile connection is about to transfer from your name to another person and the status was shown as TC-pending.  On 10-09-2015 the complainant filed a petition at Khammam, Khanapuram Haveli Police Station for the injustice caused to the complainant for wrongful loss and wrongful gain by third person and fraudulent occupation of the complainant mobile number and complainant obtained receipt from police station.  Again on 28-10-2015 the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 on that Manager of Opposite Party No.1 asked the complainant to submit the proof, on that he promised that they would allot the number in 15 days.  The Opposite Party No.1 suggested the complaint to put mail to the appellate desk of Opposite Party No.1, on that complainant put a mail to th December,2015.  After that complainant made written representation to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 7 through registered post, but the Opposite Parties failed to respond, as such the complainant filed this complaint.

3.       On behalf of the complainant, the complainant filed the following documents and the same were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.6. 

Ex.A.1         :-       is the statement from Opposite Party No.4, dt:11-09-2015.

Ex.A.2:-       is the complaint receipt from P.S.Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam, dt:10-09-2015.

Ex.A-3:-      is the photocopy of Election Commission Identity Card.

Ex.A-4:-      is the Postal Receipts (Nos.8)

Ex.A-5:-      is the photocopy of email sent to the Opposite Party.

Ex.A-6:-      is the copy of the complaint sent by the complainant to the Opposite Parties.

4.      On receipt of notice the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed Counter.  In their counter, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3  denied the averments and allegations made by the complainant in the complaint.  The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  submitted that the complainant filed the complaint with false and frivolous allegations which are imaginary, illusory in nature without any evidence, they are vexatious in nature and the  complainant has approached the Forum with unclean hands and suppressed the material  facts, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) 24577/2010 and also as per the  judgment of the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission in F.A.111/2017 the disputes relating the Telephone and Cellular services  as such the Forum may be pleased to reject the complaint as not maintainable.  The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 submitted that they had received a port out request for the mobile No.9666666789 from the complainant and accordingly the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 had processed the port out request as per the procedure prescribed under Mobile Number Portability (MNP) guidelines and ported out the mobile No.9666666789 to M/s. Vodafone on 4^th September,2015.  Also submitted that, the complainant has written an application dated 23^rd September,2015 to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 that port out of the mobile No.9666666789 was without his consent to M/s.Vodafone, on receipt of the said application from the complainant, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 informed the same to M/s.Vodafone i.e. Opposite Party No.4 to return the said mobile number as the same was wrongfully ported out.  The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 got the number return from Opposite Party No.4 and thereafter informed the complainant to collect the said number as the same has been returned by M/s.Vodafone, but the complainant did not come forward to collect the said mobile number from the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 inspite of repeated intimations.  The Opposite Parties also submitted that as the complainant did not come forward to collect the number, the mobile number  was released in the open market and the same was  issued to another customer, as the complainant did not show any interest in the collecting the said mobile number from the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.      The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 filed I.A.No.102/2017  under Order VII, Rule 14 (2) R/W Section 151 of CPC praying this Forum to receive the documents, by condoling delay if any and mark the same as Exhibits.  The Respondent/Complainant filed Counter stating that the letter dated             19-10-2015, alleged to have send through Hitech Courier Services consignment note dated 26-10-2015, consignment No.0001856 containing signature does not  pertains to him, which clearly shows it is manipulated and the complainant is not at knowledge of alleged letter as such prayed to dismiss the Petition.  The I.A.No.102/2017 was allowed and the documents filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 marked as Ex.B1 & B2 subject to proof and relevancy. 

6.      On behalf of opposite parties No.1 and 2 the following documents are marked exhibits B1 and B2.

Ex.B-1: is the Photocopy of letter submitted by the complainant to the             opposite party No.2., dt. 23-09-2015.

Ex.B-2: is the reply given by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant dt. 19-10-2015 along with Hitech Courier service consignment number vide No.0001856, dt. 26-10-2015.

7.      Opposite Parties No.4 and 6, in their Counter  submitted that the complainant has set out false and baseless allegations against the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties have not  committed any deficiency of service to the complainant much less as alleged in the complaint, only for illegal  and wrongful gain has filed the false complaint against the Opposite Parties, the complaint filed against the Opposite Parties No.2 and 6 is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.  The Opposite Parties further submitted that the name described in the cause title are incorrect and there is no company called VODAFONE  South Limited in existence as on the date of filing of the complaint, M/s.Vodafone South Limited has been amalgamated and merged into with M/s.Vodafone Mobile services limited by virtue of a scheme of Amalgamation approved by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at New Delhi in Company Petition No.488/2012.  The Opposite Parties No.4 to 6 further submitted that above facts about the said amalgamation was also brought to the knowledge of the complainant vide an application dated 02-05-2016 and despite of the said fact on the record the complainant has failed to amend the complaint to the extent of the above facts till date for the reasons best known to the complainant and on this ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The Opposite Parties No.4 and 6 denied all the averments made by the complainant in the complaint.  The Opposite Parties No.4 and 6 further submitted that there has been an MNP request to their Network for the mobile Number 9666666789 prepaid customer information No.PATE 328204 (UP Code-IA962145) dated                         29-08-2015 and accordingly the said number was activated by the Opposite Parties network on 05-09-2015 in compliance of the Telecommunication Mobile number portability regulation 2009 dated 23-09-2009 issued by the Sector regulator i.e. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. However, the donor operator of the said number informed the Opposite Parties No.4 and 6 that there is a dispute or priority of the said mobile number and requested to return the said mobile number to the donor network and based on the same the said number was deactivated in the Opposite Parties No.4 and 6 network on 13-10-2015 and was returned to the donor network i.e. M/s.Idea Cellular Limited, Andhra Pradesh Service area on 17-10-2015 at 12:59:18 Hours, after due process. And also submitted that the handling of port in request was in compliance of TRAI regulations and automatic in nature and in the entire handling of MNP of the said number and return thereof to the donor operator there is no deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties No.4 and 6.  The Opposite Parties No.4 and 6 also submitted that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.

8.       On behalf of the opposite parties No.4 and 6 the following documents are filed and marked as exhibits B-3 to B-11.

Ex.B-3 is the photocopy of certificate of incorporation of Vodafone South Limited, dt. 13-10-2011.

Ex.B-4 is the photocopy of certificate of incorporation of Vodafone Mobiles Services Ltd., dt. 10-10-2011.

Ex.B-5 is the photocopy of Form No. INC-28.

Ex.B-6 is the photocopy of Board Resolution dt. 30-03-2017.

Ex.B-7 is the photocopy of Power of Attorney dt. 31-03-2017.

Ex.B-8 is the photocopy of Prepaid Customer Information Form,                  dt. 29-08-2015

Ex.B-9 is the photocopy of complaint received from M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd., dt. 07-10-2015

Ex.B-10 is the photocopy of MNP Regulation, dt. 23-09-2009.

Ex.B-11 is the photocopy of Screen shot of the Number status.

9.      The opposite party No.4 and 5 filed two petitions vide IA.No.37/2016 and IA.No.70/2016 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC prayed to reject / dismiss the complaint of the respondent/complainant for lack of cause of action and for want of jurisdiction and the respondent No.1/complainant filed counter stating that his mobile number network vide No.9666666789 was hijacked or allotted to third parties without knowledge of the Respondent/complainant and the Respondent/complainant had already given an application stating the fraud occurred by the opposite parties, but they failed to give reply and not realized the mistake and by way of filing the unnecessary interlocutory application for dismissing the complaint is irregular, as such prayed to dismiss the petition.

10.    The petitioner / complainant filed a petition vide IA.No.21/2017 Under Sec. 151 of C.P.C.          prayed to direct the respondents/opposite parties to hold / struck of the services of Mobile number, whose service under mobile number working till the date of the disposal of the complaint. The respondent/opposite parties No.1 and 2 in their counter submitted that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner/complainant filed this petition on imaginary ground and to cover his lacunae and filed the petition intentionally to drag the matter on one way or the other, as such prayed to dismiss the petition.

11.    The petitioner / complainant filed a petition vide IA.No.22/2017 Under Order 16 Rule 6 R/w. Sec. 151 of C.P.C. prayed to call for the entire customer documents who are using and who has used the cell phone number 9666666789, since its inception.  The respondent/opposite parties No.1 and 2 in their counter submitted that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner/complainant filed this petition on imaginary ground and to cover his lacunae and filed the petition intentionally to drag the matter on one way or the other, as such prayed to dismiss the petition.  The respondent/opposite party No.4 and 6 submitted that all the relevant documents since inception are irrelevant against these respondents / opposite parties No.4 and 6 are concerned and already they have submitted all the relevant data and documents pertaining to the mobile number 9666666789 before this Forum, the petitioner/complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought under petition and prayed to dismiss the petition.

12.    Written Arguments of opposite parties No.4 and 6 filed.

13.    Heard oral arguments from both sides.

14.    Upon perusing the material available on record, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether this complaint comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

Point:-

In this case, the complainant  had obtained a mobile service connection at Ideal Cellular Ltd, the prepaid Idea service connection No.9666666789 vide SIM No.89910725701431400317 on 20-12-2014 and utilizing the services of such mobile connection from time to time by paying money through recharge cards and e-recharge facility.  According to the complainant on 25-08-2015, when the complainant was on the way from Miyapur to Hyderabad at about 04.00 P.M. the mobile screen showed that his SIM registration was failed, immediately he made a complaint to the customer care Executive from another mobile stating about his inconvenience, interruption through the service provider on his SIM from his connection No.9666666789.  The Customer Care people advised the complainant to switch OFF and ON the phone after 10 minutes and then everything is fine, and after 10 minutes again switch on the phone, but the mobile number haven’t been activated and same problem repeated continuously.  According to the complainant on                    26-08-2015, the friend of complainant on making  call to him on the said number, the number of complainant told that this number 9666666789 is been lifted by some unknown person, thus the complainant got suspicion and got a doubt that his mobile number has been misappropriated and allotted to some other  person. On that the complainant on 27-08-2015 approached the Opposite Party No.3 regarding the problem, the Executive of Opposite Party No.3 suggested to call the customer care once again.  As per the advice of Opposite Party No.3, the complainant again submitted his identity proof to the Opposite Party No.3 on that they allotted SIM No.89910735101419256096 on the regular phone No.9666666789, the mobile number got activated and continued the services till 03-09-2015.  On 03-09-2015, the complainant received a message from Opposite Party No.6, wherein “Hello, you are porting IA962145 dated 03-September-2015 has been approved by your current operator we will communicate the porting date time shortly”.  According to the complainant on 04-09-2015 the outgoing and incoming services were barred, again the complaint made call to the Opposite Party No.2, they stated that “as your connection is been put to conversion to post paid, the outgoing was barred, and will be activated within 2 days.”  On 05-09-2015 the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.7 and enquired about the SMS, they replied that “As you put porting to the mobile number 9666666789 from idea service provider to Vodafone service provider, you obtained such message”, and the mobile connection is about to transfer from your name to another person and the status was shown as TC-pending.  On 10-09-2015 the complainant filed a petition at Khanapuram Haveli Police Station, Khammam for the injustice caused to him for wrongful loss and wrongful gain by third person and fraudulent occupation of the complainant mobile number and complainant obtained receipt from police station.  The complainant sent a mail to th December,2015 and made written representation to the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 7 through registered post, but the Opposite Parties failed to respond, as such the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.

          According to the opposite parties No.1 and 2, they had received a port out request for the mobile No.9666666789 from the complainant and accordingly this Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  had processed the port out request as per the procedure prescribed under Mobile Number Portability (MNP) guidelines and  ported out the mobile No.9666666789 to M/s. Vodafone on 4^th September,2015. And the complainant has written an application dated:23^rd September,2015 to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 that port out of the mobile No.9666666789  without his consent to M/s.Vodafone, on receipt of the said application from the complaint, the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 informed the same to M/s.Vodafone i.e. Opposite Party No.4 to return the said mobile number as the same was wrongfully ported out.  The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 got  the number return from Opposite Party No.4 and thereafter informed the complainant to collect the said number as the same has been returned by M/s.Vodafone, but the complainant failed to  come forward to collect the said mobile number from the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 inspite of repeated intimations.  According to the complainant, the letter dated:               19-10-2015, alleged to have send through Hitech Courier Services consignment note dated 26-10-2015, consignment No.0001856 containing signature does not  pertains to him and it was manipulated and the complainant is not at knowledge of alleged letter. According to the Opposite Parties Nos.4 and 6 there has been an MNP request to their Network for the mobile Number 9666666789 prepaid customer information No.PATE 328204 (UP Code-IA962145) dated: 29-08-2015 and accordingly the said number was activated by the Opposite Parties network on 05-09-2015 in compliance of the ‘Telecommunication Mobile number portability regulation 2009.  The donor operator of the said number requested to return the said mobile number to the donor network and based on the same the said number was deactivated in the Opposite Parties No.4 and 6 network on 13-10-2015 and was returned to the donor network. According to the complainant he never made any application for porting from IDEA Cellular network to another network and also he never received any information from the opposite parties No.1 and 2 particularly on 19-10-2015 through Hitech courier service consignment dt:               26-10-2015 and the consignment containing signatures does not pertaining to him. 

In view of the above facts we are of the opinion that there are several question of facts and law is involved in the present complaint, which required adducing evidence and production of voluminous documents, and therefore, a civil court of competent jurisdiction only could handle the matter, as such the complainant is directed to get redressal on his grievance before appropriate Forum / Civil court.  Hence, IA.No.37/2016, IA.No.70/2016, IA.No.21/2017 and IA.No.22/2017 are closed.  

In the result, the complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint before the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance.  The time consumed during the pendency of this complaint in this Forum can be saved from the period of limitation.  Accordingly, this complaint is disposed off.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 28^th day of August, 2018).

                    Member                           President

                                                                    District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties

                    Member                           President

                                                                    District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.