By Sri.Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
1. The complainant averred in the complaint that he is a reputed business man and he has been using his mobile connection for his personal and business purposes for more than 10 years The mobile connection number is 9946400100. Being a business man, his phone number was widely used for the purpose of business including in the family circuit. The complainant had used the above said number under the network of different service providers and for the last time he ported his phone number to the network of opposite party. At the time of availing connection from the network of opposite party, the opposite party had assured of uninterrupted voice and data network of the opposite party. Unfortunately on 13/02/2017 without any request from the side of the complainant or any intimation given to the complainant the connection to the above aforesaid number was disconnected by the opposite party. According to the complainant the opposite party has violated TRAI regulations and the acts of the opposite party is amount to deficiency of service. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant was prepared to make a business tour to China on the very next day of alleged disconnection. Due to the illegal disconnection of phone number done by the opposite party many of the business partners and friends could not contact the complainant, resulting much mental agony and hardship on the verge of scheduled journey to China. The complainant faced much difficulty in arranging stay facilities in China and could not contact his business partners due to the disconnection of the mobile number without prior notice from the side of opposite party. So the complainant has cut shorted his business trip in China and returned to India prior to the scheduled time. On 09/02/2018 the complainant issued a notice to the opposite party. But the opposite party did not act upon the notice and even reluctant to send a reply for the same. Due to the act of the opposite party the complainant had sustained damage and also suffered mental agony. It is stated in the complainant that the sufferings of mental agony could not be calculated in terms of money , so the complainant stipulated his claim to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only) as compensation for damages .
2. Complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The complainant filed an interlocutory application numbered as 144/2020 praying for amending the month of cause of action as December instead of February. In the third page of the complaint it is stated that the cause of action was arisen on 13/02/2017. But according to the complainant it is a clerical mistake and so the complainant filed above stated IA NO 144/2020 to correct the clerical mistake as 13/12/2017 instead of 13/02/2017. The Commission allowed the application and complainant was permitted to carry out the amendment as prayed in the application.
3. In the version it is contended by the opposite parties that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the complaint and complaint is liable to be dismissed. The opposite parties even contended that the complainant is not a consumer. According to the opposite parties there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is further contended by the opposite parties that the complainant had suppressed material facts and had set out incorrect and misleading allegations. The opposite parties claimed that they are the leading telecom service provider in the country and they are committed to deliver delightful customer experiences . The opposite parties always provide normal and acceptable standard of service. According to the opposite parties up to 27/11/2015 the complainant used the service regime of M/s Vodafone. Thereafter the complainant changed his service provider up to 16/08/2016 and thereby he availed service of the opposite parties. But on 16/08/2016 the complainant again ported his connection to the network of M/s Bharathi Airtel and he availed service from M/S Bharathi airtel until 28/06/2017. Thereafter the complainant again ported his number on 28/06/2017 and thereby availed service from the opposite parties. It is stated by the opposite parties that the allegation made with respect to the disconnection occurred on 13/12/2017 is totally misconceived. The complainant did not make any complaint with regard to service of the opposite parties as he was not availed any service from 13/12/2017 onwards. There was no violation of TRAI regulations and did not committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. It is also stated in the version that the traveling details of the complainant to China and alleged difficulty faced abroad are denied by the opposite parties. The porting request made by the complainant on 28/06/2017 clearly shows that there was no disconnection made on 13/02/2017 and assigning of the number to any person. According to the opposite parties, the complainant apparently continued with connection at least till 13/12/2017 as per records maintained by the opposite parties. It is further contended by the opposite parties that the issuance of lawyer notice and its inaction are not relevant considering the context of the matter. The complainant did not sustained any damages as of Rs.3,00,000/- ( Rupees three lakh only) as stipulated in the complaint and so the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost. The opposite parties were filed additional version stating that record pertaining to the subject matter connection, service of connection and like were deleted from the system on expiry of 3 years according to the opposite parties. Usually the records with regard to matters in which the litigation pending shall be maintained in the system. But the complaint does not pertain to this opposite party, after expiry of three years the records got deleted without preservation and presently invented allegation referring to 13/12/2017 is to create a new cause of action knowing fully that records of the opposite parties for the relevant period had been deleted and same is only to cause embarrassment to the opposite parties.
4. The complainant and the opposite parties filed affidavits and produced documents. The documents produced by the complainant is marked as Ext. A1 to A5 documents. Ext. A1 document is the copy of lawyer notice dated 07/02/2018 along with original postal receipts issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext. A2 documents are the acknowledgment cards showing the receipt of notice by the opposite parties. Ext. A3 document is the copy of e ticket showing the flight journey conducted on 14/12/2017 by the complainant. Ext. A4 document is the copy of e ticket travelling from Bangkok to China by the complainant. Ext. A5 document is the copy of passport showing the details of visa to China availed by the complainant. The opposite parties produced one document and marked as Ext. B1 document. Ext. B1 document is the copy of MNP portal screen shot along with list of operators with code as per mobile clearance house.
5. Heard complainant and the opposite parties. Perused all documents and affidavits.
The points arisen for the consideration of the Commission are as follows:
- Whether the complainant had faced any kind of deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties?
- If yes, then what will be the relief and cost to be ordered.
6. Point No.1 and 2
The grievance of the complainant is that for the last 10 years he was using mobile number 9946400100 and same was disconnected by the opposite parties, who are service providers without giving any intimation. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is a business man and his phone number is widely used by his clients as well as his nears and dears. Moreover the complainant was scheduled to fly to China on 14/12/2017 in connection with his business ventures. But due to the disconnection of his mobile number by the opposite parties he sustained financial loss and faced trouble in arranging accommodation facilities in China. As per the statement of the complainant his mobile connection was a postpaid connection and he further stated that within a span of 10 years he used to port the mobile number from one network to another network . But on the other hand, the opposite parties contended that there was no disconnection from the side of opposite parties. According to the opposite parties up to 27/11/2017 the complainant availed network of Vodafone and on 27/11/2015 onwards complainant used the network of opposite parties after changing his connection. But on 16/08/2016 onwards the complainant again ported his number with Bharathi Airtel network and same is availed till 28/06/2016. It is also argued by the opposite parties that the complainant again ported his connection on 28/06/2017 to the network of opposite parties and continued up to 13/12/2017 under postpaid flat form. Both parties admitted that the nature of connection was postpaid. So there is no difficulty for the complainant to produce details of bill issued by the opposite parties to complainant for the usage of mobile network connection. There is no document available before the Commission to show that the complainant was in use of the subject mobile number on or before 13/12/2017. According to the complainant, he travelled for China on 14/12/2017 and the complainant produced copy of e ticket of flight to show the journey to China. The copy of e flight ticket is marked as Ext. A3 document. The complainant also produced copy of e ticket showing the journey to China via Bangkok and copy of ticket is marked as Ext. A4 document. The complainant also produced copy of Visa showing the business trip to China and marked the document as Ext. A5 document. Going through Ext. A3, A4 and A5 documents it can be found that the complainant had travelled to China but at the same time the complainant did not adduce any kind of evidence to show that the particular journey to China was in connection with a business ventures . More over the complainant also withheld from bringing evidence before the Commission to show the details of business he occupied. According to the complainant due to the disconnection of mobile number he could not connect the people from business circle and suffered a lot and also caused discomfort to his journey to China. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 07/02/2017 to the opposite parties with regard to his grievances and copy of the notice along with postal receipt is marked as Ext. A1 document. The complainant also produced acknowledgment cards showing the receipt of notice by the opposite parties and same are marked as Ext. A2 document. The opposite parties admitted the issuance of notice by the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant had to cut short the duration of trip in china due to disconnection of mobile number by the opposite parties. But the Commission cannot find the contention of the complainant as bonafide and trust worthy. According to the complainant present mobile number is used by one Abbas Kallungal. At the same time the complainant failed to bring out any kind of evidence on that aspect. As per Ext. A5 document the validity of his visa period ends on 25/12/2017. It is stated by the complainant that he had to cut short the business trip and return to India due to disconnection of mobile number.. As per the evidence, it can be considered that he reached back in India on or before 25/12/2017. But the complainant issued legal notice only on 07/02/2017 which is evident from Ext. A1 document. The fatal delay of more than one month for taking steps to reinstate mobile connection especially in use of business purposes can be considered the case of the complainant as very feeble and unbelievable. More over the complaint is filed only on 27/ 09/2018 and same is showing the easiness of situation as the mobile number was not at all important to the complainant. So going through the entire evidence available on record the Commission finds that complainant failed to adduce proper evidence in order to substantiate his contention made out in the complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed .
Dated this 10th day of April , 2023.
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A5
Ext.A1: Copy of lawyer notice dated 07/02/2018 along with original postal receipts issued
by the complainant to the opposite parties.
Ext.A2: Acknowledgment cards showing the receipt of notice by the opposite parties
Ext A3: Copy of e ticket showing the flight journey made on 14/12/2017 by the
complainant.
Ext A4: Copy of e ticket travelling from Bangkok to China by the complainant.
Ext A5: Copy of passport showing the details of visa availed by the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1 and DW2
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B
Ext.B1: copy of MNP portal screen shot along with list of operators with code as per
mobile clearance house.
