Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/218

Amarjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Idea Cellular Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajiv Abhi Adv.

01 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:218 dated 31.03.2015.            

                                             Date of decision: 01.12.2021.

 

Amarjit Kaur w/o Shri Jagdev Singh, House No.7-G, Sarabha Nagar, Opposite PAU Gate No.2, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant

 

1.M/s Idea Cellular Limited, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase 7, Mohali-160055.

2.M/s Idea Cellular Limited, Regional Office SCO No.21, IInd Floor, Feroze Gandhi Markeet, Ludhiana.

3.M/s Vodafone South Limited, C-131, Industrial Area, Phase VIII, Mohali-160071.

4.M/s Vodafone South Limited, Zonal Office, Surya Tower, 7^th Floor, Mall Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                    …..Opposite parties

 

                             Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.Rajeev Abhi, Advocate

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate

For OP3                         :         Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate

For OP4                         :         Exparte

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was subscriber of the OP1 and OP2 vide mobile sim No.88725-11101. As the OP1 and OP2 were raising him inflated bills, the complainant got her sim ported to the OP3 and OP4 on 21.02.2014 through their authorized store situated at Sarabha Nagar, Main Market, Ludhiana. When the sim was ported out and transferred to Vodafone company i.e. OP3 and OP4, OP1 and OP2 raised a demand of Rs.18.99P. The complainant deposited the said amount vide receipt No.K-127412 dated 26.04.2014 issued by the authorized store of the OP1 and OP2 situated at Rani Jhansi Road, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana. However, the connection of the complainant was disconnected on 28.04.2014. Thereafter, the OP3 and OP4 issued bills to the complainant for Rs.150/-, Rs.168.24P and Rs.163.04P. The complainant paid all the bills vide receipts dated 21.03.2014, 24.04.2014 and 17.05.2014 respectively, but the connection was disconnected wrongly and arbitrarily on 28.04.2014. The complainant wrote letters to the OPs to restore the connection but to no avail. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to restore the connection which has been disconnected illegally and arbitrarily and be further made to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

2.                Upon notice, OP4 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the remaining OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP1 and OP2, it has been, interalia, pleaded that there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OP1 and OP2. According to the OP1 and OP2, the mobile portability facility is governed under Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulation, 2009. The procedure of seeking the number portability facility is that first the customer sends a message from its number requesting for unique porting code (UPC), then the service provider gives UPC code and intimates the subscriber through SMS and the subscriber retains such UPC in its record for the purpose of its verification of porting request. While approaching the recipient operator, the subscriber has to make an undertaking that there is nothing due towards the donor operator. As per Regulations 2009, in case of non-payment of any outstanding bills issued to the subscriber for the services availed till disconnection of mobile number from the network from of donor the operator, the donor operator will communicate to the recipient operator through mobile number portability service provider and the subscriber has to produce the evidence of having settled the outstanding dues with the donor operator within a timeline, upon which the recipient operator shall not take any further action in pursuance of the notice. OP1 and OP2 further pleaded that the services of the disputed sim number was released by the OP1 and OP2 as the number was ported out to the OP3 and OP4 being the recipient operator. However, number was returned by the OP3 and OP4 on 30.10.2014. Thereafter, the OP1 and OP2 retained the number for three months but nobody came to get the number reactivated and it was allotted to Libas Garment, where the said number is presently activated. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In separate written statement filed on behalf of the OP3, it has been, interalia, pleaded that the complainant herself miserably failed to adhere to the guidelines issued regarding MNP Services i.e. Mobile Number Portability Service Provider. The complainant failed to make the payment of outstanding within the time frame. Moreover, the complainant herself failed to intimate the recipient operator i.e. OP3 and OP4 regarding the deposit of the outstanding dues towards the OP1 and OP2, for which, the answering OPs cannot be made liable. It has further been pleaded that as per regulation 15 of sub rule 4 of Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulation, 2009 that if the subscriber does not produce evidence of having settled such account with the donor operator, the recipient operator shall disconnect the connection of the subscriber and inform the mobile number portability service provider and request for reversal of such mobile number would be made to the Number Range Holder after expiry of ninety days. According to the OP3, the complainant failed to intimate the OP1 and OP2 regarding deposit of outstanding dues, for which, the OP3 cannot be made liable. OP3 has also made a prayer for dismissal of complaint.

5.                In evidence, complainant submitted her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence.

6.                 On the other hand, the OP1 and OP2 submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh.Manoj Madan, Aurthorized Signatory of Idea Cellular, Limited along with document Ex.R1 and closed the evidence.

7.                Similarly, OP3 submitted affidavit Ex.RA3 of Sh.Ashutosh Kalia, Deputy General Manager Legal of OP3 and closed the evidence.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through records along with written arguments submitted by the counsel for the complainant.

9.                As per the notification Ex.R1 whereby the regulations called as Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009 were notified, Regulation 15 (4) of the said Regulations provides that if the subscriber fails to provide evidence of having settled such outstanding dues with the Donor Operator, the Recipient Operator shall disconnect the mobile number of such subscriber and inform the Mobile Number Portability Service Provider forthwith about the disconnection of such mobile number and request for reversal of such mobile number to the Number Range Holder after expiry of ninety days.

10.              Perusal of said regulation clearly reveals that after getting the number ported, the complainant was required to furnish the evidence to the OP3 and OP4 who are the Recipient operators that the complainant has settled the account with the OP1 and OP2 i.e. the Donor Operators. Neither in the affidavit Ex.CA, it has been stated by the complainant that she furnished the evidence of payment of upto date bills issued by the OP1 and OP2 to the OP3 and OP4 till the time of portability with the result that the OP3 and OP4 invoking regulations 15, disconnected the number and returned the same to the donor operator. As the complainant did not take any action for 90 days to get the connection revived/reactivated, it has been rightly allotted to someone else. Therefore, in our considered view, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Rather, the complainant herself has not fulfilled the obligation as required under aforesaid Regulation 15 of Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

12.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.12.2021.

Gurpreet Sharma