1. Miss Fouzia Shouja, Advocate by profession has filed the instant complaint against the respondents Warid Telecom and Ufone Telecom for recovery of Rs.5000000/- as compensation for providing of faulty services. As per facts mentioned in the complaint complainant has purchased from Mobilink company sim bearing No.0300-5555670 and got it registered in her name on 07th March 2008 which was later on ported in to Warid Telecom Network. Allegedly on 11-09-2010 she was informed by her friends that said sim is being used by Mohsin Shahzad which fact was later on confirmed by the complainant who allegedly told her that he has purchased the sim from Warid Telecom company from Faisalabad. She further alleged that on contact with respondent No.1, she was informed that said sim has been ported in to Ufone network while she has never consented for transfer of ownership to Mohsin Shahzad and also for port in to Ufone network. According to the complainant because of the said faulty services of respondents not only her clientage was adversely effected but also she remained tense and has faced the agony. She has claimed Rs.5000000/- as compensation.
2. Both the respondents by filing separate written statement have denied the allegations. As per version of Warid Telecom company the disputed number remained registered in the name of complainant till last movement and on receipt of request from Ufone company, the recipient operator, portability was allowed, in view of MNP regulations.
The stand taken up by respondent No.2 Ufone company is that on receipt of SMS from the disputed number on 667 and on submission of request in black and white on printed form accompanied with the CNIC of the complainant, request was sent to donor recipient Warid Telecom company while its ownership have never been transferred to any other person.
3. Efforts for reconciliation were made but remained unsuccessful whereupon parties were required to produce evidence.
4. Complainant, in order to prove the allegations, has appeared as PW1 and has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. On documentary side, legal notice Exh."P1" & "P2", receipt TCS Exh."P1/1" &"P2/1", receipt mobilink Exh."P3", receipt Tax certificate Exh."P4", copy of application to PTA Exh"P5", receipt TCS Exh."P5/1", warning card Exh."P6", medical prescription Exh."P7", certificate counsel fee Exh."P8", reminder car repair Exh."P9", service form Exh."P10" have been produced.
In rebuttal, no evidence has been produced on behalf of the respondent No.1, as because of non appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1 exparte proceedings were taken. On behalf of the respondent No.2 Ufone, Nadeem Anjum have made appearance and has deposed that disputed number is till in the name of complainant which is on the Ufone network. He added that earlier to port in to Ufone, the disputed sim was at Warid Telecom network and for shifting to Ufone, complainant has submitted request on the printed form to Ufone retailer shop at Samondri Road, Faisalabad alongwith copy of CNIC and in view of the same after verifaction said request was acceded to. On documentary side Photostat of printed form Exh."R1" & copy of CNIC Exh."R2" have been produced.
5. Contention of learned counsel for the complainant is that through the evidence available on the record allegation against the respondents of providing of faulty services is being established as inpsite of admitted position regarding registration of disputed sim in the name of complainant, it was sold away to one Mohsin Shahzad by the Warid Telecom company. Further argued that respondent No.2 Ufone company with malafide has got ported in the disputed sim on its own network and that too from a retailer shop at Samondri Road, Faisalabad while no such request was ever made by the complainant. Taking objection to the admissibility of Exh."R1"&"R2" it has been argued that inspite the availability of the original and request of complainant in black and white, these were not produced, so secondary evidence is becomes inadmissible. Further argued that Exh."R2" is not the copy of CNIC rather is copy of the NADRA record which can be down loaded from the website of NADRA.
6. Conversely the arguments advanced are that respondent N.2 has acted as per PTA regulations as on submission of request on printed form, process regarding portability was initiated while complainant's request to block the sim was immediately entertained.
7. In the light of arguments, record has been carefully perused. Complainant admittedly is the owner of disputed sim No.0300-5555670 which was on network of Warid Telecom company earlier to the controversy in hand. Allegation as contained in the complaint against Warid Telecom company is that without cancellation of registration of the complainant, the disputed sim was sold away to Mohsin Shahzad resident of Faisalabad and later on facility of port in to Ufone network was also provided with malafide. To prove the said allegation there is the solitary statement of the complainant as PW1 while her friends and relatives who allegedly have intimated her that the disputed sim is being used by Mohsin Shahzad have not been produced. According to the complainant's own statement she was informed by Mohsin Shahzad that he has purchased it from Faisalabad in Rs.1000/-. Said statement of complainant cannot be taken gospel truth regarding transfer of ownership in the name of Mohsin Shahzad, complainant has also not produced any documentary evidence in this regard and also no request for the summoning of the record of the Warid Telecom company while as in the written statement filed by respondent No.1, allegation of sale of disputed sim to Mohsin Shahzad was denied. Further no such allegation was leveled by complainant in the application submitted to PTA tendered in evidence as Exh."P5". complainant's statement that on 15-09-10 she has got blocked the disputed sim is negating her allegation as in case of change of ownership complainant's request to block the sim could not be acceded to.
8. As far as the allegation of change of network is concerned, Warid Telecom company is not found at fault as on receipt of the request by the recipient operator facility of portability was allowed. For the illegality/irregularity if committed in the said process Warid Telecom company cannot be held responsible as verification, as per PTA Rules was to be made by recipient operator which is Ufone.
In view of what has been stated above, I feel no hesitation to declare that complainant has remained unsuccessful to prove her allegations against respondent No.1, Warid Telecom company.
9. Allegation against respondent No.2 Ufone company is regarding change of network, complainant has turned up as PW1. On behalf of the respondent No.2 an attempt has been made to establish on record that deviation from the rules have been made by its management and on submission of request on printed form by the complainant alongwith copy of CNIC, necessary heaving verification was made. In this regard Photostat copy of printed form Exh."P1"and of CNIC Exh."P2" allegedly presented retailer shop of Ufone at Faisalabad have been placed on record. By making available Photostat copies possession of original document has not been denied while no plausible explanation has been put forth for not producing the original document inspite of direction of this Court. Plea taken up that original remained in the custody of franchise is the lame excuse as the said franchise is working under the Management of Ufone. Permission of Court for producing the secondary evidence was also not been obtained. As such it has been rightly argued that Exh."R1" & "R2" are inadmissible documents. Considering the objection as valid, both these documents are excluded from the evidence.
10. Even otherwise respondent No.2 company is not found acting with accordance in law while initiating portability process. Undeniably Photostat of CNIC alongwith the request in black and white by the subscriber was prerequisite which was not observed by the respondent No.2 Management as Exh."R2" on bare perusal is found to be copy of NADRA record which can be easily downloaded by any one. Further in the application form allegedly submitted by her, her present and permanent addresses is mentioned as of Gujranwala, so, abundoned causation was required before initiation of proceedings and the common prudence requires that complainant should had been contacted in any manner by making a request for verification to Ufone office at Gujranwala.
Then to prove the bonafide it was incumbent upon respondent No.2 to produce in witness box the official of Ufone retailer shop Samondari Road, Faisalabad to establish on record that it was complainant who submitted the request but nothing have been done in this regard. Although it is correct that no plausible explanation has been put forth on behalf of the complainant regarding SMS on 667 from the disputed sim and also the matter regarding non possession of original sim by complainant has remained shrouded in mystery. According to the complainant it was forcibly taken away by Management of Warid Telecom company when she has visited its office to lodge the complaint but non mentioning of said fact in the complaint and in the legal notice itself is casting doubts. It looks that the complaint has lost the possession of disputed sim and some one having possession of it, has made SMS. Inpsite of that Ufone company could not be absolved of its duty to take precautionary measures regarding portability process.
11. Because of above discussion I am of my considered opinion that respondent No.2 Ufone is found guilty of providing faulty services. Certainly the privacy of the complainant has been disturbed. As such complainant becomes entitled for compensation from respondent No.2 Ufone company which in the given circumstances is fixed as Rs.20000/- as compensation besides Rs.5000/- as legal charges. By accepting the complaint to the extent of respondent No.2 Ufone Telecom company is directed to pay Rs.25000/- to the complainant within 30days while to the extent of respondent No.1 Warid Telecom company complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.