By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant is a customer of the opposite parties and availed a post paid Vodafone Sim from them. The first opposite party is the Head office in Kerala state and the second opposite party is the branch Manager of Manjeri branch. In the month of December 2019, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and demanded to convert his post paid SIM connection into prepaid SIM connection. The second opposite party assured the complainant that the conversion of SIM into prepaid connection will be completed after 3 months. On 23/03/2020, the complainant again approached the second opposite party and paid Rs.399/- as per the instruction of the 2nd opposite party as the last instalment of post paid connection. Moreover the complainant remitted Rs.297/- on the same day as the advance for prepaid Sim and a prepaid Sim was also hand over to him by the second opposite party. According to the complainant, the second opposite party assured of activation of new Sim within three days and post paid Sim was disconnected. But again the post paid Sim was activated by the opposite parties. The complainant approached the second opposite party more than 10 times to get activated the prepaid instead of post paid Sim, but the second opposite party replied in dishonouring manner. It is alleged by the complainant that the second opposite party threatened him of legal actions if the charge of post paid connection was not remitted. It is further stated in the complaint that the second opposite party even directed the complainant to remitted the bill of post paid connection since April 2020 to get activated the prepaid Sim connection. According to the complainant, the act of the second opposite party caused mental agony, hardship and financial loss to the complainant. So the complainant approached this Commission for a direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the complainant for the sufferings of mental agony, hardship and financial loss. The complainant also claimed Rs. 20,000/- from the opposite parties as the cost of the proceedings.
2. The complaint is admitted on file and issued notices to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed version.
3. In the version, the opposite parties contended that, telecom disputes are subject to the adjudication by the expert technical agency or adjudicating authority as per India Telegraph Act and TRAI Act, 1997. According to the opposite parties the subject matter dispute is outside the ambit of the Consumer Commission. The opposite parties disputed its status shown in the cause title and according to them, the first opposite party operates out of its Head office in VJ Tower, Vytilla (PO), Ernamkulam-682019 and is known as Vodafone Idea Limited after its merger with and into former Idea Cellular Limited. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant is a post paid customer of the opposite parties with effect from 29/11/2019. According to the opposite parties there was no denial of migration of post paid connection into prepaid connection. It is contended by the opposite parties that the connection itself was activated in the fag end of November 2019 and no application for migration to prepaid connection was received and so complaint is baseless and fabricated one. It is stated in the version that the complainant had approached the second opposite party to migrate from post-paid connection to the prepaid connection and a request for migration was also submitted for verification. But on the very same day lock down was declared by State Government due to Covid-19 pandemic and restrictions were imposed for movements and so verification process could not be done by the second opposite party. According to the opposite parties verification process at the time of Sim exchange is done with utmost due diligence to avoid any form of fraudulent Simex that may result in financial fraud. The migration request of the customer from post paid to prepared which inter alia includes replacement of old Sim with new Sim (Simex) and therefore warrants verification form the customer service back end team. According to the opposite parties the verification process could not be completed due to total lockdown which continued until May, 2020. It is contended by the opposite parties that the customers are advised to insert the new Sim into handset after verification by which the old Sim will become automatically deactivated. In this case, the connection of the complainant did not deactivate due to non completion of the verification and therefore there was no interruption to the telecom services to the number of the complainant. It is alleged by the opposite parties that the complainant had extensively used the connection from the month of March 2020 to August 2020 and at the same time the complainant failed and was unwilling to effect the payment of the bills. It is also stated that the connection has been suspended with effect from 12/08/2020 due to non payment of bill. The opposite parties had initiated migration process on the first phase of the withdrawal of the lock down, but same got rejected due to non payment of bills. According to the opposite parties, the complainant neither entitled to reactivation nor migration of the connection without payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 1204.50/-. The opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with compensatory cost.
4. The complainant and the opposite parties filed affidavits. Both parties filed documents in support of their respective contentions made out in the complaint as well as version. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Ext.A1 to A4 documents. Ext.A1 document is the receipt dated 23/03/2020 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 399/-. Ext.A2 document is the copy of receipt dated 23/03/2020 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant showing payment of Rs. 297/-. Ext. A3 is the prepaid SIM Card along with its cover issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext.A4 document is the copy of application form dated 23/03/2020 submitted by the complainant. The documents produced by the opposite parties are marked as Ext.B1 to B8 documents. Ext.B1 document is the copy of application form for the post paid connection dated 29/11/2019 submitted by the complainant. Ext. B2 document is the copy of Government Order of declaration of lock down dated 23/03/2020 in connection with covid -19 pandemic. Ext.B3 document is the copy of bill dated 22/04/2020 issued by the opposite parties in connection with the post paid mobile connection of the complainant. Ext. B4 document is the copy of bill dated 22/05/2020 issued by the opposite parties in connection with the post paid mobile connection of the complainant. Ext.B5 document is the copy of bill dated 22/06/2020 issued by the opposite parties in connection with the post paid mobile connection of the complainant. Ext.B6 document is the copy of bill dated 22/07/2020 issued by the opposite parties in connection with the post paid mobile connection of the complainant. Ext.B7 document is the copy of bill dated 22/08/2020 issued by the opposite parties in connection with the post paid mobile connection of the complainant. Ext.B8 document is the copy of system screen shot of acceptance of the request and consequent rejection of migration process.
5. Heard both sides in detail. Perused all documents and affidavits. The points arisen for the consideration of the Commission are:-
Whether the opposite party has committed any kind of deficiency in services towards the complainant?
Relief and costs.
6.Point No.1 & 2:-
The complainant contended that he was a post paid mobile number user of the opposite parties and in the month of December 2019 he approached the opposite parties to get migrate his number from post paid connection into a prepaid connection. According to the complainant, he again contacted the second opposite party on 23/03/2020 and remitted the due amount of Rs. 399/- of the post paid balance and also remitted Rs.297/- for availing prepaid connection. But his connection was not migrated as assured by the second opposite party irrespective of repeated demand by the complainant. The complainant produced receipt dated 23/03/2020 issued by the opposite parties showing the payment made by the complainant and produced another bill dated 23/03/2020 showing the payment of Rs. 297/- made by complainant. Those documents are marked as Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 documents respectively. The opposite parties did not oppose the contents of Ext.A1 and A2 documents. According to the complainant even though he received a prepaid Sim card from the second opposite party, he did not get disconnected his post paid Sim card. The prepaid Sim card issued by the second opposite party is also marked as Ext.A3 document. The contention of the opposite parties are that the complainant did not approach the second opposite party for migration of Sim card into prepaid one. The opposite parties vehemently argued that the complainant subscribed the post paid connection in the month of November, 2019 July. The opposite parties produced the application form submitted by the complainant for subscribing post paid connection from the opposite parties and same is marked as Ext. B1 document. The contents of Ext. B1 document clearly shows that the complainant availed the connection on 29/11/2019. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant approached them for migration of post paid Sim card into prepaid Sim card on 23/03/2020. The Ext.A4 document produced by the complainant also shows that the complainant submitted his request for migration on 23/03/2020 only. As per the version of the opposite parties the request and identity proof submitted by the complainant for migration is verified as against the customer application form and proof submitted at the time of activation. The verification process is done with utmost due diligence to avoid any kind of fraud. But due to declaration of lock down following covid-19 pandemic by the State Government, the opposite parties could not complete verification process as the entire society stood stand still because of lock down. The opposite parties produced copy of Government Order of declaration of lock down before the Commission and same marked as Ext.B2 document. According to the opposite parties, another reason for rejection of request for migration of mobile connection was due to non payment of bills by the complainant. The opposite parties produced by bills showing the non payments charges for the usage of mobile connection facility by the complainant. According to the opposite parties, the complainant defaulted a total of Rs. 1204.50/- by using the post paid connection. The bill dated 22/04/2020 is marked as Ext. B3 document. The bill dated 22/05/2020 is marked as Ext. B4 document. The bill dated 22/06/2020 is marked as Ext. A5. The bill dated 22/07/2020 is marked as Ext.B6 document. The bill dated 22/08/2020 is also marked as Ext.A7 document. So perusal of Ext.B3 to Ext.B7 documents clearly shows that the complainant is committed default in payment of the bill. Moreover the opposite party also stated that now the post paid mobile number of the complainant is disconnected. It is further stated by the opposite parties that after the relaxation of lock down in the month of May, 2020, they made an attempt to migrate the post paid connection into a prepaid connection. But according to the opposite parties, the above said attempt became futile one as the complainant did not clear the outstanding due. The opposite parties produced the system screen shot of the acceptance of the request and the consequent rejection and same is marked as Ext.A8 document. When analysing the entire evidences provided by the both parties, the Commission finds that the rejection of request for migration of post paid mobile connection into prepaid connection is valid and the complainant is also failed to prove his case. A customer who committed default in making payment of bill got no right to migrate his mobile connection. The contention of the opposite parties with regard to jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain this complaint is lacking statutory support. Hence this complaint is dismissed.
Dated this 24th day of February, 2023
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4
Ext.A1 : Document is the receipt dated 23/03/2020 issued by the opposite parties
to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 399/-.
Ext.A2 : Document is the copy of receipt dated 23/03/2020 issued by the opposite
parties to the complainant showing payment of Rs. 297/-.
Ext. A3 : Prepaid SIM Card along with its cover issued by the opposite parties to the
complainant.
Ext.A4 : Document is the copy of application form dated 23/03/2020 submitted by
the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext.B1 to B8
Ext.B1: Document is the copy of application form for the post paid connection dated
29/11/2019 submitted by the complainant.
Ext. B2: Document is the copy of Government order of declaration of lock down
dated 23/03/2020 in connection with covid -19 pandemic.
Ext.B3 : Document is the copy of bill dated 22/5/2020 issued by the opposite
parties in connection with the post paid mobile connection of the
complainant.
Ext. B4: Document is the copy of bill dated 22/05/2020 issued by the opposite
parties in connection with the post paid mobile connection of the
complainant.
Ext.B5 : Document is the copy of bill dated 22/06/2020 issued by the opposite
parties in connection with the post paid mobile connection of the
complainant .
Ext.B6: Document is the copy of bill dated 22/07/2020 issued by the opposite parties
in connection with the post paid mobile connection of the complainant .
Ext.B7 : Document is the copy of bill dated 22/08/2020 issued by the opposite
parties in connection with the post paid mobile connection of the
complainant .
Ext.B8 : Document is the copy of system screen shot of acceptance of the request
and consequent rejection of migration process.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
CPR
