BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 632 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 15.10.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 16.06.2011 |
Sh.Nitish Mehta s/o Late Sh.Anil Mehta r/o H.No.3603, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1. Vodafone Essar South Ltd., Regional Office SCO No.170-171, Ist Floor, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager. 2. Mr.Daulat, Authorized Representative, Vodafone Essar South Ltd., Regional Office SCO No.170-171, Ist Floor, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. 3. Manny Gupta, Employed at Vodafone Essar South Ltd., Regional Office SCO No.170-171, Ist Floor, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 2nd Address: r/o H.No.698, Sector 70, Mohali. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER Argued by:None for parties. PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely Sh.Nitish Mehta has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that OP-2 being the representative of OP-1 approached the complainant for providing vodafone connection and gave him option to take number of his choice. The complainant paid Rs.250/- to OP-2 and gave option for mobile NO.9888081001 vide receipt dated 19.8.2010 (Annexure C-1). OP-2 handed over a sim to the complainant and stated that the number would start functioning within 24hours. It has been averred that when the mobile connection did not function, he approached OP-2 who informed him that said mobile no. was allotted to some other person and offered another No.9988081001 which was accepted by him. However, the said mobile number was again allotted to OP-3 by OPs No.1 and 2. As per the complainant, he received phone call from OP-3 that she is ready to surrender the said mobile number on payment of Rs.5000/-. OP-1 also raised the demand of Rs.5000/- against the said number which is illegal, hence, this complaint. 2. OPs filed written statement and took some preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint in view of section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. It has further been pleaded that the mobile No.9888081001 mentioned on the receipt issued to the complainant is only as an option of the allotment of number which is subject to its availability. It was found that the said number was already active in the name of Harsha Welding User Vikram Malhotra since 23.07.2004. It has further been pleaded that thereafter, the complainant opted for mobile No.9988081001 and on enquiry it was found that the same was already allotted to OP-3. It has been vehemently denied that any demand of Rs.5000/- has been made from the complainant. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4. We have perused the record very carefully. 5. The dispute in hand pertains to the allocation of choice mobile phone number to the complainant which has allegedly been allotted to some other person. 6. In view of the law laid down in the case of Prakash Verma Vs. IDEA Cellular Ltd. and Another decided on 01.10.2010 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).24577/2010, neither the complaint is maintainable nor this Forum has jurisdiction to try the present lis. Hence, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 16.06.2011 | | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | cm | | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | , | | 
