The East District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held the company liable to pay the amount saying there was no document on record that it had issued notice to its service subscriber prior to disconnecting her services.
"There is not a single document on record to show that the opposite party (Idea Cellular) issued any notice to the complainant before disconnecting the services to her number and allotting the same to a third person.
"Since no such notice has been given, withdrawal of services and thereafter, allotment of this number to the third person is unfair trade practice," a bench headed by N A Zaidi said and directed Idea to pay Delhi resident Preeti Singhla Rs. 40,000 as compensation for the harassment she had to undergo.
Singhla, in her complaint, had alleged that services to her number, which she had been using since 2008, were stopped by Idea in 2009 without giving any notice to her and her number was alloted to someone else, again, without informing her.
She alleged that since her number was of a type which was in demand, it was alloted to someone else by the telecom major without her knowledge.
Idea Cellular Ltd, in its written statement, claimed that as Singhla had not submitted any identification proof, and on physical verification of her residential address, she was not found there, services to her number were stopped.
This contention was, however, disputed by Singhla who said Idea had been regularly sending bills to the address given by her.
The forum rejected Idea's contention saying it had not filed any document to show the address given by Singhla was false or forged.
Get your daily dose of tech news, reviews, and insights, in under 80 characters on Gadgets 360 Turbo. Connect with fellow tech lovers on our Forum. Follow us on X, Facebook, WhatsApp, Threads and Google News for instant updates. Catch all the action on our YouTube channel.