BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, B.A. MEMBER
Thursday, 14th July 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 22 / 2016
P. Subba Narasimha Rao, S/o P. Subbarayudu,
aged about 29 years, Hindu, working as Private Employee,
R/at Q. No. 83/A, Railway Quarters,
Angadi Veedhi, Kadapa Dist. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Manager, Vodafone Stores, NTR Circle,
Kadapa town and District.
2. The Nodal Officer, Vodafone South Ltd., 6th Floor,
Varun towers, Begumpet, Hyderabad,
Telangana – 500 016. ………Opposite parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 11-7-2016 and perusing complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of complainant as party in person and Opposite parties are also appeared as in person, the matter is having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri M.V.R. Sharma, Member),
1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 requesting this forum to direct the Opposite parties:-
(a) To pay an amount of Rs. 1,91,000/- towards loss, mental agony etc.,
(b) To pay Rs. 2,000/- towards cots and
(c) Pass such other and further orders in the circumstances of the case.
2. The Complainant filed a complaint and stated that he purchased SIM card vide cell No. 9703148369 and card No. 140936810067HISY from opposite party No. 1 (for short herein called as O.P) by paying Rs. 275/- for family purpose. But the above said SIM card was not worked. On 22-1-2015 he called customer care and came to know that the said SIM card was exchanged and he blocked the said SIM card on 23-1-2015 and also stated that to obtain new SIM card. He approached to O.P.1 office with necessary documents and he got the same. He was asked the executive of O.P.1, he not exchanged the said SIM card but how the same is exchanged without my knowledge. The O.P.1 executive replied that through the said SIM card mobile net work porting requested also activated on 22-1-2015.
3. The Complainant further stated that through his cell phone, he contacted the customer care on 25-1-2016 several times for the purpose of mobile number portable deactivation. But not received suitable reply and directed to make the manager of Vodafone stores. As per direction of the customer care he approached O.P.1 stores Manager on 25-1-2016 and O.P.1 collected request letter from me for MNP cancellation. But the O.P.1 not deactivated MNP and also the present SIM card was also not working from 6-2-2016. Due to the Opposite parties negligent act and also there was deficiency of service and also stated that SIM card sold to another person on dummy I.D proofs is a collusive manner and committed malpractice. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
4. The Opposite parties filed joint counter and admitted that the Complainant obtained Telecommunications service of this Opposite parties by signing a “customer application form” for above said SIM card. The Complainant had approached O.P.1 on 25-1-2016 for not functioning of the SIM and replacement of the same. Accordingly, the O.P.1 replaced the SIM as per request of the Complainant. On 6-2-2016 the mentioned services unavailability wherein the executive of this store informed on verification from the system that his mobile number has been ported out to “Tata Teleservices GSM” and also the executive of O.P. explained in detailed to the Complainant that it is only on user of the SIM request that the number was ported in to “TATA Teleservices GSM” on 6-2-2016 and it was not within the control or direction of the Opposite parties to cancel the same. Once the number was successfully ported out from its net work, the port out took place normal course the Opposite parties have no control on the same. If the current service provider is made a party in the Complaint and the records are produced as per the Telecommunication mobile number portability regulations 2009 all the port out requests has to be honoured by the telecom operator to whom the request for port out is made. Thus the said port out for the Complainants number was done in bonafide and under the representation of porting out request by the Complainant.
5. The Opposite parties are also stated that it is beyond the knowledge of the Opposite parties whether Complainant called the customer care service several times but he submitted a written request for cancellation of the port out of the above number. As the same is activated and also stated that the Opposite parties described in the cause title is in correct there is no company called Vodafone south limited. This Vodafone limited has been amalgamated and merge in to M/s Vodafone service limited. Hence, the Hon’ble forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
6. To prove his case the complainant filed an affidavit along with documents and got marked Exs. A1 to A3 and on behalf of opposite parties Exs B1 to B10 documents are marked. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
ii. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him?
- To what relief?
8. Point Nos. 1 & 2. In the present case on hand the Opposite parties have admitted that the Complainant obtained their services by signing a customer application form for obtaining the prepaid SIM bearing No. 8991130140936810067 and mobile No. 9703148369.
9. Though the Complainant contended that after obtaining the service of Opposite parties on 22-1-2015 the said SIM not worked and he called the customer care several times and he came to know that his SIM card was exchanged and he blocked the said SIM card from other number on 23-1-2015 and he approached to the O.P.1 on 25-1-2016 and he got replacement of SIM by submitting necessary documents and also came to know that the SIM portability request also activated on 22-1-2015 and also stated that he called customer care several times for MNP deactivation, but they simply said to meet manager of Vodafone stores. As per advice of customer care the Complainant approached the O.P.1 Manager and lodged a letter for cancellation of MNP on 25-1-2016. The Manager of O.P.1 promised to the Complainant but the said SIM card not worked from 6-2-2016 and the MNP not deactivated.
10. The Opposite parties contended that since 25-1-2016 the Complainant submitted a written request seeking for cancellation of the Port out request of the said SIM Card accordingly, cancellation request for the porting was raised, however, the port out took place is normal course as the Opposite parties have no control on the same.
11. As per Ex. B9 the telecommunication mobile number portability regulations - 2009 clearly stated that the portability requests can only be initiated by the subscriber. As seen Ex. B8 the Complainant request letter dt. 25-1-2016 clearly shows that he requested O.P1 for cancellation of MNP. But not mentioned, who is the person activated MNP, in verification of the Opposite parties that his mobile number was ported out to “Tata Teleservices GSM”. As per the MNP regulations 2009 all the port out requests have to be honoured by the telecom operator or service provider. Accordingly the ported service provider TATA Telecom services GSM honoured the Complainant request which clearly showing by Ex. B10.
12. If such is the case the Complainant might have been lodged a police complaint, to register FIR and investigate to prove who activated the said Mobile Number Portability. Complainant also failed to impleade TATA Teleservices GSM service provider as party in this case.
13. Thus, we see there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties. The Complainant not established his allegations made in the complaint. Accordingly, the points 1 & 2 are answered against the Complainant.
14. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 14th July 2016
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Opposite parties : NIL
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant :-
Ex: A1 P/c of demand notice issued to the opponents, Dt. 10-2-2016.
Ex: A2 Served postal acknowledgement of O.P. No.1 and Receipts of 1 & 2
(original),Dt. 10-2-2016.
Ex: A3 P/c of Computerized copy of delivery report by the postal website
5-3-2016.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents : -
Ex:B1 P/c of form no.28.
Ex:B2 P/c of incorporation certificate of Vodafone Mobile Services Limited.
Ex:B3 Copy of the Public Notice ( English).
Ex:B4 Copy of the Public Notice ( Telugu).
Ex:B5 Copy of the Board Resolution, Dt. 2-12-2015.
Ex:B6 Copy of the CAF , Dt. 15-9-2015.
Ex:B7 Copy of the SIM Replacement Form, Dt. 25-1-2016.
Ex:B8 Copy of the Port out cancellation Request Letter, Dt. 25-1-2016.
Ex:B9 Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009.
Ex:B10 Copy of the System screen Shot, Dt. 6-2-2016.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- P. Subba Narasimha Rao, S/o P. Subbarayudu, aged about 29 years, Hindu, working as Private Employee, R/at Q. No. 83/A, Railway Quarters, Angadi Veedhi, Kadapa Dist.
- The Manager, Vodafone Stores, NTR Circle, Kadapa town and District.
- The Nodal Officer, Vodafone South Ltd., 6th Floor, Varun towers, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 016.
B.V.P.
