Order No. 19 dt. 30/05/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant had one mobile phone having no.9903378118 and the complainant as using the said mobile phone for the last 7-8 years. Earlier the service provider was Airtel, subsequently the complainant availed the service of o.p. no.1. The complainant was asked to sign on some blank papers and provided a SIM card of Vodafone and it was informed that as soon as the service from Airtel will be stopped the SIM provided to the complainant is to inserted and the Airtel SIM card to be removed. The complainant was asked to pay the outstanding bill of Airtel. The complainant completed all the formalities and o.p. no.1 was supposed to start service from 17.12.13. The complainant paid the bill on and from 27.12.13. Though the service to the complainant was stopped on 15.12.13 but o.p. no.2 received the bill upto 27.12.13. The complainant found that the service was not provided to him by o.p. no.1 and the complainant wrote a letter to o.p. no.1. The complainant made an advertisement in the news paper with the same number but no connection was provided for which the said money was wasted. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for the money spent by him for the advertisement as well as compensation and other loss sustained by him totaling a sum of Rs.1,27,500/- and also prayed for other reliefs.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated by o.p. no.1 that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. in support of the said contention o.ps. cited various rulings to that effect. It was stated that at the time of verification of voter I.D. card submitted by the complainant got rejected as per regulatory norms as the I.D. illegible and as such it was not possible for o.p. no.1 to determine whether the request for number portability was genuine. Post resubmissions of the documents and after verifying the details and as per the undertaking given by the complainant to clear all the previous dues, o.p. no.1 activated the connection in its network and mobile number was active in o.p. no.1’s network effective from 27.12.13. Hence the complainant is liable to pay / clear the dues of o.p. no.2 as per the last bill issued by o.p. no.2’s network and the same could be addressed by o.p. no.2. At the time of request the complainant was informed that the complainant needs to dial 117 for tele verification as per regulatory norms but the complainant failed to take such action. In view of the said fact since as per clause 15(3) where a request is made by the donor operator under sub regulation 5 of regulation 14 for disconnecting the ported number, the recipient operator shall issue a notice to the concerned subscriber, the period which shall be not less than 7 days and not more than 15 days. Here in this case, on the basis of the said fact o.p. no.1 specifically stated that there was fault on the part of the complainant and thereby the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
The o.p. 2 by filing w/v their version denied all the material allegations of the complaint. The complainant made request on 18/12/2013 upon the o.p. 2 for port out request and on receipt of such request the o.p. 2 initiated the process in terms of mobile no. portability guide lines as per TRAI. The complainant failed to produce any document with the Vodafone store on which Vodafone is supposed raise a S.R. request through system upon o.p. 2. It was further stated that the request was raised by Vodafone on 21/12/2013. After receiving such request the donor operator is required to release ‘No objection’ certificate upon the settlement of accounts and clearance of all outstanding amounts including billed an unbilled amount. In the instant case the complainant’s mobile connection was deactivated on 27/12/2014 at 22.50 hrs. and therefore till such time the connection of the complainant was fully active and functional.
There was no deviation on the part of the o.p. 2 in any manner whatsoever in complying all the process and provisions of the mobile portability rules. The o.p. 2 denied that any subsequent bill for deactivated mobile phone raised by the o.p. 2. In view of the said fact the o.p. stated that there was no material to hold that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. 2 and accordingly the o.p. 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be determined :-
- Whether the complainant had the mobile connection of o.p. 2 ?
- Whether the complainant raised port out request to the o.p. 2 for having a connection with o.p. 1 ?
- Whether the o.p.s committed deficiency in service to the complainant ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decisions with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
The complainant being an advocate wanted to change the line connection from Airtel to Vodafone. For the purpose of obtaining connection the complainant provided all the relevant papers to the o.p. 1 with a request to avail of the porting of the line to Vodafone from Airtel. The complainant as per the request of o.p. 1 paid all the outstanding dues and it was decided that the service would be started from 17/12/2013. The o.p. 2 raised their bill on 27/12/2013 though the service to the complainant was stopped on 15/12/2013. In spite of the payment of the said amount the complainant did not avail of the service of the o.p. 1. The complainant in the mean time published an advertisement in newspaper which he had with the o.p. 2 but since no connection was provided the complainant could not get any communication in response to the said advertisement because of deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. the complainant filed this case praying for compensation of Rs. 1,27,5000/-.
The Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. 1 argued that this case is not maintainable and the documents provided by the complainant were not eligible for which the request of the complainant could not be entertained. Subsequently with the payment of dues of the o.p. 2 and necessary documents furnished by the complainant the connection was restored by the o.p. 1. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. 1 and accordingly the Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. 1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
The Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. 2 argued that after the request made by the complainant and changing of the service from the o.p. 2 to o.p. 1 there was no relationship between the complainant and the complainant is not the consumer under the o.p. 2 and thereby the question of deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. 1 does not arise and accordingly the o.p. 1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant had earlier the mobile connection with the o.p. 2. Subsequently he wanted to change the connection from the o.p. 2 to o.p. 1. Accordingly he handed over the necessary documents with a request to the o.p. 1 about porting of the line to Vodafone from o.p. 2. But from materials on record it appears that the complainant had some outstanding dues to o.p. 2 and after clearing the dues the o.p. 1 took the measure for changing of the portal to o.p. 1. It is also found from the materials on record that the complainant at the time of providing the documents failed to provide the legible documents for which some delay was committed in processing the said change from o.p. 2 to o.1. The complainant was informed of the said fact all through but the complainant with the misconception that the portal system was active and on the basis of the said fact the complainant published an advertisement in newspaper mentioning the contact no. which he had earlier with the o.p. 2. Though the complainant claimed that he paid an amount of Rs. 12,500/- but he failed to produce the document that actually the advertisement was published in the newspaper and he also failed to produce the paper cutting of the advertisement to show his bonafide. The materials on record also established the fact that there was some communication gap between the complainant and o.p. 1 which was not properly apprised by the o.p. 1 to complainant, thereby we hold that there was deficiency in service by the o.p. 1 for which the complainant should be compensated by the loss sustained by him.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the complainant will be entitled to get the relief.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence,
it is ordered,
that the case no. CC/226/2014 is allowed on contest against the o.p. 1 with cost and dismissed against the o.p. 2. The complainant will be entitled to get compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only from the o.p. 1. The o.p. 1 is directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only within one month from the date of service communication of the order failing which the complainant will be entitled to get interest @8% p.a. till the realization of the said amount.
Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
