Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/67

Abhineet Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Vodafone - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Balbir Singh

11 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/67 of 30.3.2015

                                      Decided on:         11.6.2015

 

1.      Abhineet Kumar s/o Sh.Balbir Singh r/o H.No.B-7/264, Gandhi Nagar, Lahori Gate St.No.3, Patiala M.9914893034.

2.      Navita d/oSh.Balbir Singh r/o H.No.B-7/264 Gandhi Nagar Lahori Gate St.No.3, Patiala.      

 

                                                                   …………...Complainants

                                      Versus

1.      The Manager,Vodafone branch Dharampura Bazaar, Patiala.

2.      The Manager Idea Branch Dharampura Bazaar, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………….Ops

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

                                     

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:      Sh.Balbir Singh, Advocate

For Op No.1:                  Ex-parte. 

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. Complainant Abhineet Kumar is the holder of mobile phone connection No.98884-41325 of the Vodafone since 2010. The complainant Ms. Navita , sister of the complainant Abhineet Kumar has been making a use of the chip of the Vodafone of the complainant.
2. On 4.3.2015, in the evening, the complainant Ms.Navita received a message from Op no.1 that the request for portability of her connection to the Idea company had been accepted. At this, Navita immediately filed the complaint with Vodafone Customer Care Center that she had never requested for any portability, of her number to the Idea Cellular. Even then the complainant received another message on 9.3.2015 that her mobile phone number has been ported to Idea on 10.3.2015, Op no.1 de-activated the sim of the complainant Navita at 3PM. She visited the office of Op no1 at Patiala personally but her connection was not restored. A period of about 20 days already having elapsed neither Op no.1 restored the number of the complainant nor Op no.2 activated her number and because of the de-activation of her number, she was facing the problem in the matter of dealing with her clients, she being a practicing lawyer in the District Court, Patiala. She has provided her Vodafone number on her visiting cards/letter heads and thus, all concerned are facing  problem in calling the complainant. She has also applied for the post of PCS, HCS and ADA and provided her number to the concerned authorities of the Public Service Commission. She is likely to face a problem in the matter of her correspondence with the aforesaid commissions. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to restore her Vodafone No.98884-41325 and  to pay Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for the harassment and the loss suffered in the profession.
3. The complaint was admitted against Op no.1 only but who despite service failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
4. In the exparte evidence, the complainants produced in evidence Ex.CA, the sworn affidavit of the complainant Abhineet Kumar, Ex.CB, the sworn affidavit of the complainant Navita alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C4 and their counsel closed the evidence.
5. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the complainants and gone through the evidence on record.
6. The complainants have produced in evidence Ex.CB, the sworn affidavit of the complainant Ms.Navita, in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The complainants have also produced in evidence Ex.C1, the chip of mobile phone No.98884-41325, which has been de-activated by Op no.1. They have also produced by way of additional evidence the SMSs Exs.C5, C6, C7 and C8. Vide,Ex.C5, the complainant had received SMS from Op no.1 regarding her request for MNP , in respect of No.98884-41325 being under process and that will be sent to clearing house and her current operation for approval. SMS,Ex.C6 was received by the complainant from Op no.1 having informed her that her porting request VP475487 dated 4 March,2015 had been approved and that they will communicate the porting date and time shortly. Ex.C8 is the SMS received by the complainant from Idea having welcomed her to Idea and asked to call at 59059 for tele-verification after 9.3.2015 23:30:00 to enjoy her services. Expected no service period was disclosed to be four hours.
7. It is the plea taken up by the complainants that the complainant Ms.Navita had never requested for any portability from Vodafone phone to Idea. To the similar effect is the deposition made by her in her sworn affidavit, Ex.CB. It was, therefore, for Op no.1 to have come forward to contest the claim of the complainant. So much so, the complainant had got Op no.1 served with the legal notice dated 14.3.2015, sent through registered post as would appear from Ex.C4, the copy of the notice affixed with the photograph of the postal receipt dated 16.3.2015, whereby she had made a request to restore her Vodafone number. The Op has opted not to contest the claim of the complainant and in view of the documentary evidence lead by the complainant, which goes un-rebutted , we are of the considered view that the Op had no justification to port the number of the complainant to Idea Cellular particularly when it is the plea taken up by the complainants that the complainant Navita had made a complaint to the Customer Care Center of Op no.1 that she had never made any request for the portability from Vodafone to Idea, in respect of which she has produced in evidence Ex.C2, the copy of call details made to Vodafone through No.198 on 1.4.2015. We accordingly accept the complaint and direct Op no.1 to restore the Mobile Phone No.98884-41325 of the complainant, within five days on receipt of the certified copy of the order and to activate the same immediately. The complainant shall be liable to pay for the services, as it is stated by the learned counsel for the complainants that it was a pre-paid number and in case at the time of de-activating the aforesaid number of the complainants, there was any balance in the account, the same shall be provided to the credit of the complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.2000/-.

Pronounced

Dated: 11.6.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                 Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                         Member                                  President