| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 190 of 26-07-2019 Decided on : 30-11-2021 Ashok Kumar Garg S/o Sh. Ram Niwas R/o Street No. 5, House No. 574, Nai Abadi, Abohar, District Fazlika 152 116. ........Complainant Versus Vodafone Idea limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited), C-131, Industrial Area, Phase VIII, Mohali. Vodafone Idea Limited, Suman Tower, Plot No. 18, Sector No. 11, Gandhinagar 382011 Gujarat. Vodafone Store, Store No. 5497/A-1, The Mall, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Present For the complainant : Complainant in person. For opposite parties : Sh. K P Sharma, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Ashok Kumar, complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Vodafone Idea Limited & Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Vodafone mobile No. 9872888100 prepaid (Sim Number. H1899880000023044947 1), was stopped by the company without giving him any written notice, which had been running for more than 10 years. He approached Vodafone mini store located in Abohar many times to contine the Sim. It is alleged that on 8th April, 2019, complainant got a message from Vodafone Company vide which it was conveyed to him to collect new Sim from any store of Vodafone by showing his identity proof. The nearest Vodafone Store from Abohar is at Bathinda, which was about 90 kilometers. The complainant visited Vodafone Store at Bathinda but it was told to him that number of complainant was not available with them. Complainant send e-mail to Company at appellate.pun@vodafoneidea.com on 10 April 2019, 15:00 and got a service request number 1245130627. Thereafter he received a call from the Company regarding his number and it was conveyed to him to visit Vodafone store on 27-5-2019 and get his number relased. The complainant visited Bathinda Store again, but they refussed to release his number. It is further alleged that complainant again and again made complaints to Vodafone company and after 30 May 2019 he received call and e-mail to the effect that his number stands transferred to Airtel and interaction number is 1248246249 for the further reference. Thereafter complainant visited Airtel Stores of Bathinda and Abohar, and it was informed to him that number of complainant will be released by Vodafone and e-mail in this regard was also sent to complainant. It is further alleged that again on 12/6/2019, complainant visited Bathinda Vodafone Store, but they did not release his No. 9872888100. The complainant requested the officials of Vodafone Store, Bathinda, to give him a complaint book so that he can note down his complaint, but to no effect. Thereafter Vodafone Company intimated the complainant that his number was transferred to Airtel on 12-6-2019. The complainant further alleged that Vodafone Company has physically, mentally and economically harassed him by not transferring his number. Hence, the complainant has filed present complaint and prayed for directions to the opposite party to pay him Rs. 7,000/- on account of loss in business and expenses incurred on repeated visits to Bathinda, in addition to compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be disimssed on the sole ground that the comptainant has failed to disclose the cause of action and that the complainant himself is at fault and has concealed the material fact from this Commission. It is pleaded that the complainant has failed to state that how the opposite parties are deficient in service as the representatives at the store duly informed him about the reason of the deactivation of the number and guided him to visit the Vodafonme Store at Sangrur and complainant was informed by the representatives at the Sangrur Store that there is no process available for reactivation of the said mobile number as prepaid and they asked the complainant to get it reactivated in post-paid. However, the complainant was adamant to get reactivation done only in prepaid connection. The opposite party was well within their rights to deactivate the number if the number is not recharged and further that the opposite parties were never deficient in providing services to the complainant as well as addressing to the complaints of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the alleged number has now been exited from the network of the opposite parties i.e. Vodafone Idea Ltd. to the network of its actual operator of the mobile number Bharti Airtel Punjab Circle since 12.06.2019. On merits, the opposite parties admitted that Mobile Number in question was ported to the network of the opposite parties in pre-paid connection on 06.09.2012. However, it is denied that the number was deactivated without any reason. It is pleaded that prepaid mobile number of the complainant was deactivated on 08.03.2019 on account of G3 Barring i.e. his failure to recharge his Mobile Number after expiry of validity pack. The complainant was reminded again and again about the expiry of his validity service through text messages before the deactivation on 08.03.2019. It is denied that the complainant was never asked to visit the Vodafone Store at Bathinda for his redressal but it is pleaded the opposite parties have duly addressed the complaints filed by the complainant with regard to deactivation of the given Mobile Number. The complainant approached the opposite parties by filing complaint with the opposite parties and when he visited the Vodafone Mini store at Dhuri with regard to reactivation of his number, the representatives at the store duly informed him about the reason of the deactivation of the number and guided him to visit the Vodafone Store at Sangrur. The complainant was informed by the representatives at the Sangrur Store that there is no process available for reactivation of the said mobile number as prepaid and they have asked the complainant to get the number reactivated in post-paid. However, the complainant was adamant to get reactivation done only in pre-paid connection. Therefore, in view of the above facts it is clear that the opposite parties were well within their rights to deactivate the number as the mobile number was not recharged by the complainant and further that the opposite parties were never deficient in providing services to the complainant as well as addressing to the complaints of the complainant. The complainant has failed to state that how the opposite parties are deficient in service as it was the complainant who himself was at fault by failing to recharge his validity service which resulted in deactivation of his number on 08.03.2019. Later on, the company offered him the post-paid connection, but he was adamant to get his number in pre-paid connection only even when he was duly informed that the process of reactivation is not available in pre-paid connection. Therefore, failure to get number reactivated for so long was due to above mentioned reason which resulted that number being going back to its original operator network i.e. Bharti Airtel on 12.06.2019. After denying all other averments of the complainant, opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of complaint ( Ex.C-1), photocopy of e-mails ( Ex.C-2 to C-8), and affidavit of Ashok Kumar Garg dated 24-07-2019 (Ex.C-9). On the other hand, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Manoj Madan dated 05-09-2019 (Ex.OP-1/1), photocopies of SMS flashed (Ex.OP-1/2), photocopy of notification (Ex.OP-1/3), photocopy of information form ( Ex.OP-1/4). We have heard complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand, the grudge of the complainant is that above mentioned SIM of Pre-paid No. 9872888100 of complainant was deactivated on 8-3-2019 and despite his repeated visits/requests to Vodafone Stores, his number was not activated and it was informed to him that his number was again sent back/transferred to Airtel. The plea of the opposite parties is that prepaid mobile number of the complainant was deactivated on 08.03.2019 on account of G3 Barring i.e. his failure to recharge his Mobile Number after expiry of validity pack and as per Department of Telecommunication (DoT) guidelines, it was sent to back to its original operator Bharti Airtel Punjab Circle. The complainant was told that his said number can be activated as post-paid number but he was adamant to activate it as pre-paid connection. The opposite parties have taken shelter of guidelines of Department of Telecommunication (DoT) for sending back the above said number of complainant to its original operator i.e. Bharti Airtel Punjab Circle. A perusal of aforesaid guidelines (Ex. OP-1/2) produced on file by the opposite parties reveals that as per guidelines 15 (5), the period to inform the Mobile Number Portability Service Provider about disconnection by Recipient Operator is after 90 days of disconnection, but in the case in hand admittedly the connection of the complainant was disconnected on 8-3-2019 and after a month i.e. on 8-4-2019 complainant sent e-mail (Ex. C-8) wherein he has mentioned that he made repeated visits to the local office of the opposite parties and requested them to release his number but it was informed to him that number could not be released. Vide this e-mail, he requested the opposite parties to release his number. The complainant also sent E-mail dated 9-4-2019 & 16-4-2019 (Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7) to the opposite parties and again requested them to release his number in question. In these e-mails also, he has mentioned that he made repeated visits to the office of the opposite parties at Abohar & Bathinda but to no effect and requested them to release his number. Ex. C-1 is the complaint dated 12-6-2019, noted down by complainant in complaint register of the opposite parties at their Bathinda Office but his grievance was not redressed there also. Therefore, aforsaid evidence of complainant reveals that complainant started approaching the opposite parties on 8-4-2019 for release of connection which was disconnected on 8-3-2019, in such circumstances, plea of the opposite parties that his connection/number was sent back to original original operator i.e. Bharti Airtel Punjab Circle as per guidelines of Department of Telecommunication (DoT) is not tenable because as per said guidelines the period of sending back the disconnected connection to original operator is after 90 days meaning thereby period of 90 days is waiting period in which subscriber can get his connection re-activated. The complainant kept on running from pillar to post i.e. visited the office of the opposite parties at different stations/districts to get his grivance redressed, but the opposite parties did nothing and ultimately, sent his connection back to original operator. This act of the opposite parties amounts to gross deficiency in service on their part and complainant deserves examplarly compensation, (to avoid such practice by these companies), for the harassment which he suffered at the hands of the opposite parties without any fault on his part. Resultantly, this complaint is partly allowed with cost of and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation to complainant. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 30-11-2021 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
