STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

Date of Institution: 11.10.2019

Date of final hearing: 11.08.2023

Date of pronouncement: 22.09.2023

First Appeal No.866 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Vipul Nain S/o Sh. Hans Raj Nain, R/o 46, Housing Board, Colony, Narwana, Haryana.                                                                  ....Appellant

Versus

1. Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd., Somnath Mandir Road, Near Sabzi Mandi, Jind (JIO).
2. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Plot No. 41 & 42, Industrial Park, Sec-2, Growth Centre, Saha, District Ambala.
3. Registered Office: Reliance Corporate Park, Building No.4, 5 TTC, Industrial Area Thane, Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400701.
4. Airtel near Ram Leela Maidan, Jind.                …..Respondents

CORAM:             Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member

Argued by:-       Sh. Vipul Nain-appellant in person.

                             Ms. Sapna Khurana, counsel for respondent No.1 & 3.

                             Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, counsel for respondent No.2 & 4.

                                                ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Challenge in this Appeal No. 866 of 2019 has been invited by unsuccessful complainant-Vipul Nain, to the legality of order dated 30.08.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Jind (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.166 of 2018, vide which his complaint has been disposed off, by issuing directions to complainant to deposit Rs.396/- with OPs No. 3 & 4 (Airtel Mobile Operator) within one week from receipt of certified copy of order. Thereafter, OPs No. 1 & 2 (Jio Mobile Operator) will continue services of complainant’s mobile number within next three days. OPs No. 1 & 2 (Jio Mobile Operator) have been directed to pay Rs.2200/- to complainant for mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses within 30 days from date of order.

2.      Complainant has alleged that: he got ported his ‘Airtel Postpaid’ Mobile No.9029001210 to ‘Jio Prepaid’. He has already paid for 84 days till 16.11.2018. After porting his mobile number; Airtel sent him bill of Rs.322/-. He was continuously trying to pay the same, online but was unable to do so because of some technical issue in Airtel site. After due date; he received message from Jio to pay to Rs.396/- to Airtel, or else, Jio will discontinue his service. He updated Jio with technical problems which he was facing because of Airtel. He was requesting Airtel to give solution to said problem by stating that they do not have Airtel Gallery in Narwana and only option left was online payment. Airtel assured him to solve the problem at the earliest. Entire written conversation with Airtel Via Twitter Portal was sent to Jio on its customer care Twitter handle.

3.      Thereafter, he asked Jio to collect the said amount (Rs. 396/-) on Airtel behalf but Jio ignored completely.  Jio disconnected his number on 18.10.2018. Before disconnecting his number, Jio did not give him any specific date or said deadline. Without giving deadline, how could Jio discontinued his service, when he was clearly showing his intent of paying bill and gave all options of collecting payment.

4.      After his number service was disconnected; he wrote emails to Jio and Airtel but all went in vain. He connected Consumer Forum Helpline on 22.10.2018 which suggested him write to Appellate Authority of both Jio and Airtel and advised him to wait for 39 days for response before taking any legal action. He has gone through tremendous pain, mentally and financially and his repetitive requests to both to Jio and Airtel made him suffer. He was completely harassed as this number was the source of his professional communication and dictorial attitude of these companies (Jio and Airtel) is not acceptable. He provided his Aadhar Card No.418245992002 to Airtel and Jio on which his house address is mentioned to get this ‘Sim’. When all formalities were done, then how can they (Jio and Airtel) humiliate their consumers like this. By doing so, they are putting allegations of ‘cheating and fraud’. They have challenged his dignity and self/social respect which is most humiliating to him.  On these pleas, by pedaling cause of action he filed complaint praying for strict punishment and monetary compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs for continued/ongoing harassment.

5.      Upon notice, OPs raised contest. In defence taken by OPs No.1 & 2 (Jio Mobile Operator) in preliminary objections thereof; it is pleaded that complaint is frivolous, vexatious, malicious. It lacks material particulars. Complainant has placed false and incorrect statement and contentions. Complainant requested for port on 17.08.2018 to OPs No. 1 & 2 and accordingly it was activated in Jio network on 23.08.2018 within TRAI norms of 7 days. OP No. 1 & 2 received request from previous network operator i.e. Airtel for barring the service qua complainant’s mobile No. 9029001210 on account of his having not cleared the pending dues of Rs.396/- of erstwhile Airtel Network Operator.  In terms of guidelines issued by TRAI; OPs No. 1 & 2 were enjoined upon to disconnect/bar the services being provided to complainant on said mobile number. On receipt of request of complainant’s erstwhile network operator (Airtel Network) due to non-payment of dues by complainant; and being bound by such guidelines; OPs No. 1 & 2 had no other option, but to bar the services qua Mobile No. 9029001210 on 18.10.2018 and informed complainant. He was informed to clear erstwhile operator’s dues to restore his services. On 22.10.2018, again OPs No. 1 & 2 called complainant and asked him to pay dues of erstwhile operator (Airtel). On 26.10.2018, the complainant called OPs no. 1 & 2 and again he was informed that as per TRAI regulations OPs no. 1 & 2 is duty bound to discontinue/bar the services, in case he has not complied with porting regulations and not cleared the pending dues of erstwhile operator: M/s Airtel. On 06.12.2018, complainant called OPs No. 1 & 2 and he was again informed to pay pending dues of erstwhile operator to restore his services. It is pleaded that OPs No. 1 & 2 is under obligation to comply TRAI guidelines that governed the mobile number portability and since complainant has deliberately defaulted to pay pending dues of erstwhile operator (Airtel) in spite of repeated reminders, which resulted to discontinue/bar the services. Complainant is making lame excuse that he is trying to make online payment and due to some technical issue he was not able to make payment. It is pleaded that complainant be put in strict proof, to prove factum of averments. Complainant was informed with regard to payment process and also informed that payment/dues, needs to be made with previous operator i.e. Airtel and that NOC/clearance certificate is required, else his service will suspend/barred. Despite reminders he did not clear his outstanding amount/dues with previous operator. Complainant was delinquent and deliberately not cleared his pending dues with erstwhile operator M/s Airtel which speaks volume of his creditability and ulterior motives. It is denied that mental physical harassment has been occasioned to complainant. It is pleaded there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No. 1 & 2.

6.      Parties to this lis led evidence, oral as well as documentary.

7.      On subjectively analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Jind vide order dated 30.08.2019 has disposed off the complaint in manner as mentioned herein before. Still feeling dissatisfied, complainant has filed this appeal.

8.      Appellant-complainant in person and learned counsel for parties, have been heard at length. 

9.      Appellant has urged that impugned order dated 30.08.2019 is erroneous on all fronts. Legal and factual aspects have not been analyzed in proper perspective. Complainant had been striving hard to clear the outstanding bill (Amount Rs. 396/-) of Airtel, online. For want of Airtel Gallery in Narwana, he could not physically clear this bill. He even asked Jio operator to collect amount of this outstanding bill on behalf of Airtel. It is urged that no time/deadline was given to him by Jio Mobile Operator and abruptly his mobile number 9029001210 has been disconnected by this operator, which had put him to immense harassment (physical and mental) and this disconnection had also occasioned him to suffer huge professional loss. It is urged that: the authorities of OPs who are at helm of affairs, must be inflicted with severe punishment and fine. It is urged that rights of consumers be saved from these mobile service providers who are deficient in their service towards consumers, like him.

10.    Refuting these contentions, learned counsel appearing for OPs No. 1 & 2 /respondents No. 1 & 3 (Jio Mobile Operator) herein has urged that complainant generated unique porting code on 09.08.2018 and subsequently port in request was done on 17.08.2018 for porting his mobile No. 9029001210 from Airtel Postpaid to Jio Prepaid. His request was activated on 23.08.2018 within stipulated period as per TRAI norms. Complainant had not cleared outstanding bill of Airtel Postpaid, amounting to Rs.396/- prior to porting his connection to Jio Prepaid. Accordingly, Jio operator received request from previous network service provider viz. Airtel for barring services of complainant’s mobile No. 9029001210 for non-payment of bill of Rs.396/-. It is urged that: in terms of TRAI guidelines, Jio operator was bound to bar his mobile services, which was done on 18.10.2018. Further, it is contended that complainant had not paid Rs.396/- as outstanding bill of Airtel Postpaid and there was enough time at his helm (from 09.08.2018-when he generated unique porting code to 18.10.2018- when service of his mobile No. 9029001210 was barred) to clear this bill amount. There was no technical issue which lasted for two months as urged by complainant. It is urged that: Jio operator cannot possibly collect any payment on behalf of Airtel. Complainant was to clear his outstanding dues directly to Airtel. After barring his service complainant was informed on 22.10.2018, 26.10.2018 and 06.12.2018 to clear his pending dues with erstwhile operator (M/s Airtel) for restoring his service to his barred mobile number. Lastly, it is urged that complainant has not substantiated through any evidence, as to how, he is entitled to monetary compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs as claimed by him.

11.    This Commission has critically analyzed above rival submissions. Undisputedly, bill amounting to Rs.396/- was not paid by complainant, which was due towards erstwhile mobile operator (Airtel). Stance of complainant is that he could not made payment of this amount to Airtel because of technical issue. This quality stance has no credence in legal parlance. Reason is obvious. No technical issue can ever continue to prolong for long period, particularly for a company like Airtel, which holds network for substantial number of subscribers, else, it would paralyze system of operator towards large number of subscribers. Since, it cater the needs of large number of subscribers therefore, the mobile operator like Airtel cannot possibly afford to put its subscribers in state of Jeopardy. Complainant must be aware of these ground realities.  He cannot be termed to be novice and neophyte to these ground realities, as he has pretended himself to be. In any case, complainant has not enable to prove through any cogent and tangible evidence about so urged technical problem with Airtel network which had allegedly prevented him to clear his outstanding dues of Rs.396/-.

12.    Jio network has barred the service of complainant’s mobile No. 9029001210 on 18.10.2018, while adhering to TRAI regulations concerning pending outstanding dues of erstwhile network provider (Airtel). There is specific stance that Jio network has intimated complainant to clear dues of M/s Airtel in order to restore services of his above barred mobile number. In this regard, express plea has been taken by Jio Mobile Network that complainant has been commanded on 22.10.2018, 26.10.2018 & 06.12.2018 to clear the pending dues of Airtel, so that services of mobile number could be restored, but he had failed to make payment of Rs.396/-.  There is justification in the stance of Jio network (OP No. 1 & 2/respondent No. 1 and 3 herein) that it cannot receive payment on behalf of Airtel operator.  Be that as it may, the complainant had been apprised on 22.10.2018, 26.10.2018 & 06.12.2018 to make payment of Rs.396/- to Airtel, yet as per mandate of TRAI regulations No. 11, specific written notice was not issued by donor operator and recipient operator for defaulting subscriber, before disconnecting the mobile number  of complainant. Impugned order dated 30.08.2019 of Learned District Consumer Commission-Jind has not been found faulty in this regard. Complainant has been awarded compensation of Rs.2200/- vide impugned order dated 30.08.2019. The contention by him that he is entitled to Rs.5.00 lacs as monetary compensation for continued and ongoing harassment has no formidable and acceptable base. Complainant was required to lead positive evidence in that arena to justify his claim of compensation.  It has to be borne in mind that any award for compensation entails civil consequences against person/authority against whom such award is passed.  Therefore, any award of compensation has to be on the basis of credible and tangible evidence. Now looking at this case in hand; curiously enough, no evidence has been led by him, as to how, and to what extent the career of complainant has been adversely affected. Just on suppositions, conjectures and surmises; no compensation, as claimed in complaint can be granted against OP No.1 & 2, on mere whims and fancies of complainant.

13.     For the reasons recorded above, this Commission does not find any manifest error, legal or factual, in the final conclusion drawn by learned District Consumer Commission-Jind, in its order dated 30.08.2019. Complainant is not entitled any further relief of compensation, over and above, what has been awarded to him through impugned Order dated 30.08.2019 passed by District Consumer Commission-Jind, which is the outcome of meticulous appreciation of all relevant facets of this case. Impugned order dated 30.08.2019 is affirmed and maintained. Present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.

14.    Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

15.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

16.    File be consigned to record room.

Date of pronouncement: 22^nd September, 2023

                                                                              Naresh Katyal            

                                                                              Judicial Member

                                                                              Addl. Bench-II