Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/463/2017

Sahil Thakur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/463/2017
Date of Institution	:	16/06/2017
Date of Decision	:	06/04/2018

 

Sahil Thakur, Chamber No.181, District Court Complex, Sector 43, Chandigarh – 160012.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Vodafone Private Limited through its authorised branch head, SCO 488-489, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Party No.1 (OP 1)

2.     Idea Cellular Company Ltd. through its authorised branch head, SCO 495-496, Sector
35-C, Chandigarh

… Proforma Opposite Party No.2 (OP 2)

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

 

                                                              

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Ms. Parminder Kaur, Counsel for OPs

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Material facts are, complainant is subscriber of OP-1 having postpaid mobile No.8054978400 for the last 6 years.  The complainant had approached OPs 1 & 2 with a request for porting from OP-1 to OP-2 due to better tariff plan available with OP-2.  Such a request was made on 4.4.2017 and formalities were completed. However, the said request was not acceded to without any rhyme or reason.  Hence, the present consumer complaint with the prayer to port the mobile number of the complainant and pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses. 
2.         OP-1 contested the consumer complaint and filed reply raising preliminary objections of complaint being not maintainable; has the remedy for arbitration.  On merits, point of contest is earlier the bill was not paid for the period 1.4.2017 to 30.4.2017 of Rs.246.59. However, the said bill was cleared on 6.5.2017 and OP-1 proceeded to port out the complainant’s mobile number which takes a week’s time. Thereafter on 12.5.2017, during the process of portability, UPC code had been cancelled by the MCH (Mobile Number Portability Clearing House).  As such, request was not rejected by OP-1, but, was cancelled on expiry of the validity period of the UPC code.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-2 is merely a proforma opposite party to whom the mobile number was to be ported.  No relief claimed against OP-1.  However, by way of reply, the baby of lapses passed on the shoulders of OP-1 to which OP-2 is not responsible.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case.
6.         Per pleadings of the parties, it is made out that the earlier request of the complainant was put off as the bill of postpaid mobile No.8054978400 was not cleared by him.  It is the own admitted case of OP-1 in the written statement that the bill was cleared on 6.5.2017 and thereafter the matter was processed further.  However, during the process of portability, the UPC code had been cancelled by the MCH. As such, request was not rejected by OP-1, but, was cancelled on expiry of the validity of the UPC code.  However, if the request was cancelled, it could have been reprocessed.  This consumer complaint was filed on 16.6.2017.  This matter is pending for the last about one year.  Even during this period, it is not explained why this request was not acceded to.  It is the admitted case, bill was ultimately cleared and it was a paid service and why there was deficiency in service particularly when the proforma OP-2 had no objection in case the mobile was ported to it i.e. Idea Cellular Company.
7.         Per technical objections raised, there was some arbitration clause, but, the same does not cut ice for the simple reason that it is an additional remedy under the Consumer Protection Act and is not specifically barred. Therefore, the points raised have no force or justification in the eyes of law.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed qua OP-1. OP-1 is directed as under:-

1. To immediately complete the procedure for porting the mobile number of the complainant to OP-2, on payment of requisite charges, if any.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.4,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.         This order be complied with by OP-1 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(i) & (iii) above.
10.         Since OP-2 is simply a proforma OP, therefore, the consumer complaint qua it is dismissed with no order as to costs. 
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/04/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President