1. The plea of the petitioner is that he is a consumer of the respondent No.1 & 2 through mobile Sim No. 0300-6379145. On 08.10.2010, the sim was blocked and on inquiry respondent N.2 told the petitioner that mobile sim number of the petitioner has been converted to U fone network. The petitioner filed written complaint with respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 asked to wait for ten days to activate the sim. On 23.10.2010, the petitioner again went to respondent No.2 who promised to activate the sime of the petitioner up to 03.11.2010. As per version of the petitioner the sim of the petitioner has not been ported on mobilink network up till today. On 12.10.2010, the petitioner approached respondent No.4 who told him that a request was made from Muzaffargarrh for change of the network of the petitioner from mobilink to U fone. The petitioner has alleged that respondent No.3 & 4, without verification, converted the sim of the petitioner on their own network.
2. The petitioner has prayed for restoration of connection with mobilink network and he has also claimed Rs. 1 lac as mantel torture. Respondent No.1 & 2 has submitted their written replies in which they have admitted that the petitioner submitted complaint in the office of respondent No.1 & 2.
3. Respondent No.1 &2 have admitted that the number of the petitioner was converted to U fone however, they have written that sim with same number was ported back to mobilink network on request of the complaint. Respondent No.3 &4 have also submitted their written replies in which they have admitted that the sime number of the petitioner was converted on the request of their mini franchise of Muzaffargarrh. They have also admitted that no document was received at their end to porting process however, they have taken plea that the sim of the petitioner has already been converted back to mobilink network. They have also prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. On perusal of written replies of both of the parties i.e mobilink and Ufone (respondent No.1 & 2 and respondent No3 &4) it is found that they have admitted that they received legal notice sent by the petitioner. Photo copy of complaint mark A shows that the sim number of petitioner was converted to U fone from mobilink network, without his consent. The respondent No. 3 & 4 have admitted in their written replies that they ported the sim number of the petitioner on U fone network on request of their meni franchise of Muzaffargarrh, however they have also admitted that no documents was received in this regard at their end. This all shows that mobile number of the petitioner was ported out to U fone form mobilink without consent of petitioner. It is sweet choice of the consumer to have any network which ever he likes. Therefore it is proved that the mobile number of the petitioner was ported to U fone without getting consent of the petitioner. Therefore the petition in hand is hereby accepted with costs. Respondent No. 1 & 2 are directed to activate the sime of the petitioner immediately if that has not yet been activated. The fault of the service of the respondent No.3 & 4 has clearly been proved. Therefore respondent No.3 & 4 are directed to pay counsel fee to the petitioner. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.