Haryana

Karnal

CC/75/2018

Kuljeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Vodafone Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gurmeet Singh Khillan

28 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 75 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 27.03.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 28.05.2019

 

Kuljeet Singh son of Shri Amarjeet Singh resident of House no.E-311, Subhash Gate, Karnal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. Manager, Vodafone Private Limited Company, Ambedkar Chowk, Old G.T. Road, Karnal.

2. Nodel Officer, Vodafone Private Limited Company, 173, Sector-3, Industrial Area, Karnal.

                                                                             …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

            

 

 Present:  Shri G.S. Khillan Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Rahul Bali Advocate for opposite parties.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant purchased a mobile connection no.9991110143 from the OP no.1 in the year 2011 and since the date of purchase, the complainant is using the same without any hindrance. The complainant had been using the allotted connection number which was recharge from time to time. The complainant has been using the aforesaid mobile number for the last six years and the number carries a special value to the complainant and his near and dear. On 1.1.2018, the aforesaid mobile number was illegally allotted by the company to one Shri Ravi Kumar resident of Kurukshetra without the permission and consent of the complainant despite of the fact that the complainant has been in use of the said mobile number and he had also linked his mobile number with his Aadhar Card in December, 2017. The complainant came to know about the illegal re-allotment of the mobile number in another person in the month of January-2018 itself when the said mobile number went out of the service network of the OPs. The complainant approached the OPs whereby complainant was informed that the said mobile connection number has been mistakenly allotted to some other person and said mistake would be rectified at the earliest and the complainant will be re-allotted the same but the OPs did not assigned/allotted the said number to the complainant despite of his repeated request. The complainant also requested the OPs through e-mail on 15.02.2018 to cancel the allotment of the mobile number of the complainant to the aforesaid person and for the allotment of the same to the complainant but no satisfactory reply was given by the OPs. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs so many times for the allotment of the mobile number but OPs did not pay any heed to his request. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. On merits, it is pleaded that the mobile number 9991110143 was activated on 4.2.2012 in the name of complainant Kuljeet Singh. It is further pleaded that as per records mobile no.9991110143 was deactivated on 7.1.2018 on account of no usage as per Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Regulations. It is further pleaded that complainant has sent e-mail dated 15.02.2018 and the said e-mail was duly replied, whereby the complainant was informed that the mobile no.9991110143 was deactivated due to no usage. It is further pleaded that complainant was not using the said number for more than 90 days, therefore, as per TRAI guidelines the mobile was deactivated. It is pertinent to mention here that as per TRAI Regulation on Deactivation of cellular mobile telephone connections due to non-usage the service provider/OP company can deactivate any prepaid mobile number if mobile connection is not in usage for more than 90 days. The OP company has also sent sms to the complainant before deactivation. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 4.1.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shikha Sharma Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 15.5.2019.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile connection no.9991110143 from the OP no.1 in the year 2011 and since the date of purchase, the complainant is using the said mobile number.  On 1.1.2018, the aforesaid mobile number was illegally allotted by the company to one Shri Ravi Kumar resident of Kurukshetra without the permission and consent of the complainant despite of the fact that the complainant has been in use of the said mobile number and he had also linked his mobile number with his Aadhar Card in December 2017. The complainant came to know about the illegal re-allotment of the mobile number in another person in the month of January-2018 itself when the said mobile number went out of the service network of the OPs. The complainant approached the OPs whereby complainant was informed that the said mobile connection number has been mistakenly allotted to some other person and said mistake would be rectified at the earliest and the complainant will be re-allotted the same but the OPs did not assigned/allotted the said number to the complainant despite of his repeated request. The complainant also requested the OPs through e-mail on 15.02.2018 to cancel the allotment of the mobile number of the complainant to the aforesaid person and for the allotment of the same to the complainant but no satisfactory reply was given by the OPs.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs is that the mobile number 9991110143 was activated on 4.2.2012 in the name of complainant Kuljeet Singh. As per records mobile no.9991110143 was deactivated on 7.1.2018 on account of no usage as per TRAI Regulations. The complainant has sent e-mail dated 15.02.2018 and the said e-mail was duly replied, whereby the complainant was informed that the mobile no.9991110143 was deactivated due to no usage. As per TRAI Regulation on Deactivation of cellular mobile telephone connections due to non-usage the service provider/OP company can deactivate any prepaid mobile number if mobile connection is not in usage for more than 90 days. The OPs company has also sent sms to the complainant before deactivation.

9.             Admittedly, the complainant has used the mobile no.9991110143 of the OPs company. The grievance of the complainant is that he is using the said number since the year 2011 and he also linked the said number with his Aaadhar number in the year 2017 but the OPs allotted the said number to another person without his permission or consent. Due to this act and conduct of OPs he was humiliated. On the other hand, OPs said that the abovesaid number was allotted to another person due to no usage. To prove his plea the onus was upon the OPs but OPs have failed to prove his stand that complainant has not used the said mobile number and in support of his version OPs have failed to produce any document on record. OPs failed to prove the date from which the connection was not used by the complainant. No information or message was received by the complainant prior to deactivated the mobile connection, allotted the same to other person. Thus, we are of the considered view that the service of OPs is amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is entitled for compensation.

10.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to allot the number in new series as similar as per the choice of the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:28.05.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

                (Vineet Kaushik)

                    Member