Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 250.
Instituted on : 01.05.2017.
Decided on : 06.03.2019.
Surender Parmar s/o Late Om Parkash R/o H.No.1992, Housing Board Colony, Secror-1, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Vodafone Pvt. Ltd. Plot no.173 Sector-3, HSIDC Industrial Area, Karnal-132001.
- Vodafone Pvt. Ltd. Near Medical Mod, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ajay Kumar Indora, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. P.K.Manchanda, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a prepaid mobile sim connection bearing no.8814068891 around four years back from the respondents by paying consideration amount. That around 1½ years back the complainant got his connection ported to another service provider company called Idea Cellular. That complainant started receiving messages of some Shrafat and on enquiry it came to know that even after porting of his connection, the alleged mobile connection was issued in the name of Sharfat. The complainant filed complaint before this Forum which was compromised between the parties on dated 04.10.2016. But thereafter, the opposite party wrongly given this number to one Anil Kumar R/o VPO Alewa Distt. Jind. That complainant requested the opposite parties through E-mails to discontinue Anil Kumar and to pay compensation on account of deficiency in service on their part but the opposite parties have refused for the same. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to discontinue the connection of Anil Kumar, to pay compensation of Rs.3 lacs and also to pay Rs.30000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that on 14.10.2015 a port out request was generated by the complainant for his mobile number 8814068891 vide UPC:VH133793. That during the port out process, complainant also requested to covert his mobile number from post-paid to pre-paid which was underway since 16.10.2015. However, the mobile number was ported out to IDEA on 19.10.2015. That due to system error the said number got allocated to Mr. Sharafat on 17.05.2016. That a complaint was filed by the complainant before this Hon’ble Court. However, a settlement was arrived at by the parties and the complaint was withdrawn on 04.10.2016. That the aforesaid mobile no.8814068891 was churned/deactivated in October 2016 by the opposite party. As such, OP was in process to rectify the technical issue in the system, however, it again got activated on 10.11.2016 in the name of Anil. In fact, the OP had, on receipt of complaint from the complainant, duly deactivated the said mobile number issued to Anil Kumar in the month of February, 2017 and corrected the technical issue in the system. As on date, the said mobile number is active in IDEA. It is essential to mention that no cause of action arose as the issues was resolved aptly. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 in additional evidence and closed his evidence on 05.03.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.DW1/A, documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 and has closed his evidence on dated 09.10.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5 After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that earlier this complaint was decided on dated 04.10.2016 and a settlement was made between the parties on that date . In the present complaint a written arguments was placed on record by the opposite party i.e. Vodafone Pvt. Ltd. and in their written arguments, they have admitted this fact in para no.6 that the aforesaid mobile no.8814068891 was churned/deactivated in October 2016 by the opposite party. As such, OP was in process to rectify the technical issue in the system, however, it again got activated on 10.11.2016 in the name of Anil. Ld. counsel for the OPs has also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal no.2831 of 2005 titled as Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors. and Civil Appeal no.7687 of 2004 decided on 01.09.2009 titled as General Manager, telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr.
6. The perusal of documents reveals that as per para no.6 of the written arguments, it has been established that the respondent officials wrongly issued the mobile no.8814068891 in the name of Anil Kumar on dated 10.11.2016 and the same was activated till the month of February 2017. The complainant also made a complaint with the respondent officials through mail and the copy of mail is placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C2. The respondent officials also admitted this fact after receiving the complaint in February, 2017, the opposite party permanently resolved the issue in the system and the said mobile number was permanently deactivated. Meaning thereby, there is a grave deficiency in service on the part of respondent and they have issued mobile number to one Anil Kumar. As such, opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant and the law cited above by ld. counsel for the opposite parties are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which opposite parties shall be liable to pay Rs.50/- per day beside the alleged compensation to the complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.03.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
…………………………………
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
