Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/424/2017

Arjun Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Nodel Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Johar

16 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/424/2017
Date of Institution	:	26/05/2017
Date of Decision	:	16/08/2018

 

Arjun Yadav son of Late Shri Ramdev Yadav, Resident of House No.1627, Sector 26, Panchkula. 

…..Complainant

                                   

V E R S U S

 

 

1.      The Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited, I.T. Park, Chandigarh.

 

2.      Airtel Store, Shop No. 121, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Partner/ Proprietor.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ashok Kumar, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Rajat Pabbi, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Shri Arjun Yadav, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Bharti Airtel Limited and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that on being offered better plan of Airtel by the executive of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant agreed to port his Reliance No. 9876378100 to Airtel. The Complainant was assured that the said number would port within a week. However, the Opposite Parties failed to port the said number from 08.04.2017 to 15.04.2017 on account of which the Complainant had to suffer a lot, as his aforesaid number was in circulation with various Departments, relations and friends. Eventually, a legal notice dated 18.04.2017 was served upon the Opposite Parties, but to no success. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties contested the claim of the Complainant by filing their written statement, inter alia, admitting that the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant has not impleaded the Reliance Telecommunications as a Party as under the TRAI Guidelines the approval of earlier service provider is also taken before porting the number. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the reply and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the parties.
7.         On perusal of the Customer Guide for availing the facility of Mobile Number Portability, contained in the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009, we find that Clause XII of the said Customer Guide deals with Activation of Ported Number. Needless to mention that the said Clause clearly states that change over takes place on the 7^th working day. The Complainant has alleged that the SIM allotted by the Opposite Party No.2 remained off from 08.04.2017 to 15.04.2017 i.e. for 08 days which is more than the permissible period under the Regulations of 2009 ibid. In rebuttal thereto, the Opposite Parties have miserably failed to adduce any documentary evidence, which makes a clear pointer towards the fact the portability was not done within the permissible period as contained in the Regulations of 2009.
8.         In the present circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine as he has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault on his part. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Parties have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have resolved the matter by promptly, which they failed to do and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Parties even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time & again.  Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed:-

[a]    To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

[b]    To pay to the complainant Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

10.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-		Sd/-
16/08/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]		[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member		Presiding Member
“Dutt”