Delhi District Consumer Commission Holds Bharti Airtel & Balaji Traders Liable For Failing To Port Mobile Number

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (South-West), New Delhi, comprising Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta (President) and Ms. Harshali Kaur (Member), held Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Balaji Traders liable for deficiency in service for failing to port the complainant's mobile number after taking ₹3,000. The Commission directed them to refund ₹3,000 with 6% interest and pay ₹5,000 as compensation within 45 days.Brief facts of the Case:The complainant, Shri Gaurav Tiwari, residing at Shri Kailaseshwar Mahadev Mandir, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. (OP-1) and Balaji Traders (OP-2).On 23 November 2016, one Shri Ajeet Solanki, claiming to be a representative of Bharti Airtel, approached the complainant with an offer to port his MTNL Dolphin mobile number to Airtel. The complainant accepted the proposal and paid ₹3,000 in cash, for which Receipt dated 23.11.2016, bearing Airtel's name, was issued.Despite making the payment and several subsequent calls to Airtel's customer care, the number was never ported, and no refund was provided. The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to complete the process or return the amount, but no satisfactory response was received.A legal notice dated 09.02.2019 was then served on both opposite parties, yet neither replied nor complied with the request for refund. Left with no alternative, the complainant filed the present case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (South-West), New Delhi, alleging deficiency in service, negligence, and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.Contentions of the Complainant:The complainant, Shri Gaurav Tiwari, stated that on 23 November 2016, one Ajeet Solanki, claiming to be an Airtel representative, offered to port his MTNL Dolphin number to Airtel. The complainant paid ₹3,000 in cash, for which Receipt was issued in Airtel's name. Despite repeated follow-ups, the number was never ported, nor was the amount refunded. A legal notice dated 09.02.2019 also went unanswered. He alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and sought refund with compensation.Contentions of Bharti Airtel Ltd.:Airtel denied all allegations, claiming that no money was collected by its representatives. It contended that Balaji Traders (OP-2) was an independent channel partner whose relationship with Airtel ended in 2017. The company argued that the alleged transaction was carried out by OP-2 without its authorization and that no porting request was received. Airtel further stated that the complainant should have lodged a police complaint against Ajeet Solanki, as there was no deficiency in service on Airtel's part.Contentions of Balaji Traders:OP-2 did not appear before the Commission despite service of notice and was proceeded against ex parte.Observations and Decision of the Commission:The Commission observed that the complainant produced a receipt dated 23.11.2016 for ₹3,000 bearing Airtel's name, proving that the amount was paid for porting his MTNL Dolphin number to Airtel. Airtel's denial was unsupported by any evidence, and it failed to explain how its official receipt reached Ajeet Solanki, who collected the money.It was noted that Balaji Traders (OP-2) was an authorized channel partner of Airtel at the time, making Airtel liable for the acts of its agents. The Commission held that Airtel neither completed the porting process nor refunded the money, even after receiving a legal notice, amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.The complaint was allowed, and Opposite Parties 1 and 2 were directed to jointly or severally pay ₹3,000 with 6% interest per annum from 23.11.2016 till realization, and ₹5,000 as compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses, to be complied with within 45 days, failing which further interest at 6% per annum would apply.Case Title: Gaurav Tiwari VS M/S Bharti Airtel & Ors.Case No.: DC/84/CC/19/265Click Here To Read/Download Order

Delhi District Consumer Commission Holds Bharti Airtel & Balaji Traders Liable For Failing To Port Mobile Number

Praveen Mishra

Tags