BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.204/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 25^th January 2019

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri DEVAKUMAR.M.C,

MEMBER

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to opposite party No.3, to restore the telecommunication services by re-activating the mobile No.9980657709 and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- by each of the opposite party, for the mental agony and hardship caused amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant aggrieved with the false assurances and unsatisfactorily services provided by the opposite parties, and not resuming the mobile number 9980657709 filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking direction for restoration of the said number with incoming and outgoing call facility and compensation for the mental agony and other reliefs.
3.     The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed version assuring to activate and to restore the mobile services to the complainant with same number, subject furnishing of necessary documents as per TRAI guidelines.
4.     The opposite party No.3 also filed version and submits they are willing and ready to provide the mobile services, in case the complainant is willing to avail the services, as the number was with opposite party Nos.1 and 2.  Hence, the allegations are denied and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5.     To establish the facts, the complainant filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied on several documents.  Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed affidavit.  Written arguments filed by the complainant and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 only.  Heard the oral submission of respective counsels.  Perused the material on record, matter posted for orders.
6.    The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in services by the opposite parties, for the harassment, mental agony caused and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order, for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant, a senior citizen had availed the services of opposite party No.3, on his prepaid mobile connection No.9980657709.  Subsequently on the assurance of opposite party Nos.1 and 2, opted to their services.
9.    On and when the bill was raised by opposite party Nos.1 and 2, the same has been paid by the complainant, under protest.  Even then, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 barred the incoming and outgoing calls, which is alleged as illegal.  Thus, the complainant approached opposite party No.4 and once again opted their services with the same mobile number i.e. 9980657709, clearing the entire dues to the 1^st opposite party, prior to the activation of the sim card of opposite party Nos.3 and 4.  There was only outgoing calls available to the complainant and the incoming calls were barred.  The opposite party Nos.3 and 4 intimated due to technical reason, the incoming call could not be activated.  Aggrieved with the disconnection without notice filed the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
10. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 strongly contended that, in view of various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and National Commission, the matter had the remedy under section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which provides adjudication of disputes before Arbitration.  Further, contended that, during the course of present proceedings, the said mobile number has been activated, as such the allegation of deficiency of service is denied.  Further, they have not received any request for port out and no release of number was done.  Thus, simultaneously two service providers cannot activate the same number to a subscriber and hence the number got deactivated.  As a good will gesture and to avoid further litigation, the complainant’s number has been released and the same was activated by opposite party No.3.  Hence, the deficiency in service is denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
11. On perusal of the material on record, it is established that, the complainant had availed the services of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and had paid the bill amount under protest.  The difference in bill amount was waived off subsequently.  Once again, the complainant opted for services of opposite party Nos.3 and 4 by making the necessary payment.  As there was amount due to opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and in absence of release for port out request, they could not release number for port out.  However, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have released the number later and opposite party No.3 have activated the number after filing the complaint.  Thereby, the deficiency in service is not justified.  In view of the discussions, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.
12. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussions, the complaint is to be dismissed and hence, the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 25^th January 2019)