The complainant purchased a new prepaid SIM from Bharti Airtel Mobile network in August 2017, following which a mobile number was given to him.
VIRUDHUNAGAR: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Bharti Airtel Limited to pay Rs 10,698 to a consumer Kalai Raja for disconnecting his cell service without any prior intimation and reallotting the number to some other person in 2020.
Read More: Who is Mira Murati, the new interim CEO of OpenAI after Sam Altman’s exit?
The commission comprising president SJ Chakkkaravarthy and member M Muthulakshmi issued the verdict, hearing a petition filed by K Kalai Raja, a resident of Rajapalayam, against the telecommunication network service company Bharti Airtel Limited’s Rajapalayam Branch Manager, Coimbatore Regional Office Manager, Chief Manager from the Head office in Chennai, divisional manager from Madurai and the proprietor of a private mobile shop in Virudhunagar.
Read More: Uttarkashi Tunnel Collapse: Rescuers Await New Drilling Machine As Workers Trapped For Over 140 Hrs
The complainant purchased a new prepaid SIM from Bharti Airtel Mobile network in August 2017, following which a mobile number was given to him. Kalai Raja shared the mobile number to his family members, friends and to the company he was employed at Chennai in 2018. The mobile number was also given to the company in 2020 for further communication as Kalai Raja left Chennai and moved to his residence in Rajapalayam due to Covid-19 pandemic.
Read More: Indian Railways announces special trains for World Cup final in Ahmedabad
On April 25, 2020, he recharged his SIM for `698 and was eligible for various benefits for 84 days from the date of recharge. However, on May 19, 2020, his mobile number was disconnected without any prior intimation. Initially, Kalai Raja thought it to be due to technical problems. On May 23, he came to know that the call made by his friend Maharaja to the number was attended by another person. Kalai got to know that his number was disconnected on May 19 and was reallotted to a new customer, following which he sought legal help.
The commission observed that after getting the notice, the opposite parties did not appear before the commission and have not objected or denied the allegations of the complainant Excluding the proprietor of the mobile shop, all others were directed to pay the fine.
