2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is vexatious, baseless, misconceived and is an abuse of the process of law. It has been made to injure the interest and reputation of the answering OP, hence the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the present complaint in as much as it is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and is exclusively triable by a Civil Court after leading detailed evidence and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed summarily on this score alone. It is further averred that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pertinent to mention here that the number in question has already been ported out to M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. on 24.12.2020 and as such the present complaint filed by the complainant against the op company without impleading M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd is not sustainable. The complainant has only made bald statements and has not supported his allegations with any documentary evidence which shows that he is trying his luck before this Commission in getting undue advantage from the OP. It is further averred that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission. It is further averred that this Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant. The complaint is barred by limitation imposed by Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this Commission. The complainant has no cause of action as he was duly informed by the OP company about the change in the plan and also about the fact that since his plan has been changed on his own request and as such, the same cannot be changed again prior to period of six months. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was earlier subscriber of mobile No.9988046484 with the OP network, however the same has been ported out to M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd on 24.123.2020, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs on the ground that he is consumer of the OP company vide account no.16558475 having Mobile No.9988406484 since 2014 and has been paying the bill for its consumption regularly. He has produced on record the copy of the bill Ex.C-2. His grudge is that when he opened his email and found another window open showing to fill his mobile number. He filled the mobile number and received a message that the plan RED X is activated in his mobile. Ex.C-3 has been proved the message by the complainant. He has also proved the messages and emails Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5. His allegation is that the OPs demanded Rs.1300/- per month for the plan RED X and when he requested to stop the plan, they refused by saying that there is lock up period of 6 months, which cannot be reduced and the account cannot be closed. However they asked him to choose another plan and pay Rs.3000/- more for the said purpose. Ex.C-4 shows that there was a message from the OPs that if he wants to move a different plan within six months, there will be an exit fee of Rs.3000/- charged in next bill. Ex.C-5 shows the amount of bill to be paid by the complainant.
7. The contention of the OP is that the plan of the complainant was changed at the request of the complainant only and new mobile number of the complainant has already been ported out to M/s Bharti Airtel on 24.12.2020. This contention finds support from the bills and the messages itself. The message Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 clearly show that the plan has been changed at the request of the complainant for RED X and further it is confirmed in Ex.C-4 that the complainant himself has activated this plan of RED X done from his App at his own end. Further, he was asked to get the plan changed by paying Rs.3000/-, if he wants. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs when the complainant himself has made request for the change of the plan. More so, the complainant has not come present to prove his own case. No document has been filed by the complainant to show that no messages were ever sent to the OP for change of the plan rather as per the submission of the OPs, the mobile number of the complainant has already been ported out to M/s Bharti Airtel and he is no longer subscriber to the OP. The complainant has failed to prove that there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such, the complainant is not entitled for the relief and thus, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
27.10.2022 Member President
