Reliance Infocom transfers subscriber's number to Airtel, penalised Rs 10K
- L-G Jung functioning as if there is President's Rule in Delhi: Sisodia
- Suicide car bomb kills at least 6, injures 9 in Kabul
- VIDEO: Teased by bodyguard, Agra woman smashes SP leader's Mercedes
- Amid Delhi Chief Secy row, at least dozen govt officers ready to leave city
- Modi govt calls for 'fitting' commemoration of Rajiv Gandhi death anniversary
Reliance Infocom Services has been directed by a consumer forum here to pay Rs 10,000 to one of its subscribers as compensation for transferring his number, without his consent, to Airtel which allotted the number to someone else.
The North West District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ordered Reliance Infocom to get the number transferred back to it and allot the same to the subscriber, failing which it would have to pay him Rs 10,000.
"Further, in either case, the said respondents (Reliance Infocom and Reliance World) shall, jointly or severally, pay Rs 10,000 by way of compensation for deficient services, loss of business, harassment and mental agony meted out to the complainant (subscriber) and this amount shall include the cost of litigation," said the bench presided by N A Zaidi.
The bench, also comprising its members Poonam Malhotra and Nishat Ahmad Alvi, said a copy of the order be sent to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to apprise it of "unfair trade practices" of service providers at the cost of consumers and for taking necessary action.
The forum's order came on the plea of Delhi resident Mohd Yameen, a contractor by profession, who had alleged that the Reliance number he had been using since July 2004 was ported to Airtel without his consent in 2011.
The number was then allotted by Airtel to someone else, he had said adding he came to know of the porting when his number stopped working suddenly in August 2011.
Yameen had alleged his request for reallotting the number to him was turned down by Reliance Infocom.
The forum passed its order ex-parte, after noting that counsel for the respondents appeared only once, to collect a copy of the complaint, and thereafter no written statement was filed.
"The respondents were under an obligation to provide uninterrupted service to complainant and by porting the number without express requisition from his side they are guilty of providing deficient services," the bench added.