Delhi District Consumer Commission Finds Bharti Airtel & Balaji Traders Guilty Of Deficiency In Service For Failing To Port Mobile Number; Orders Refund And Compensation
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (South-West), New Delhi, comprising Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta (President) and Ms. Harshali Kaur (Member), has held Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Balaji Traders liable for deficiency in service for failing to port the complainant’s mobile number after collecting ₹3,000. The Commission directed both parties to refund ₹3,000 with 6% interest per annum and pay ₹5,000 as compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses, to be complied with within 45 days.
The complaint was filed by Shri Gaurav Tiwari, a resident of East of Kailash, New Delhi, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging negligence and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties. According to the complainant, on 23 November 2016, a person named Ajeet Solanki, claiming to be a representative of Bharti Airtel, approached him with an offer to port his MTNL Dolphin mobile number to Airtel. The complainant accepted the offer and paid ₹3,000 in cash, for which a receipt bearing Airtel’s name was issued. Despite repeated follow-ups with Airtel’s customer care, the porting was never completed, and no refund was made. After repeated reminders failed, the complainant issued a legal notice on 9 February 2019 demanding refund, which also went unanswered. Left with no alternative, he approached the Consumer Commission seeking refund, interest, and compensation.
Bharti Airtel denied the allegations, contending that it had not received any payment from the complainant and that Balaji Traders, its channel partner at the time, had acted independently. The company argued that the alleged transaction was unauthorized and that no porting request had ever been received by Airtel. It further stated that the complainant should have lodged a police complaint against Ajeet Solanki.
Balaji Traders, on the other hand, failed to appear before the Commission despite being duly served and was proceeded against ex parte.
After reviewing the evidence, the Commission observed that the complainant produced a receipt dated 23 November 2016 for ₹3,000, clearly bearing Airtel’s name. The Commission held that Airtel’s denial was not credible, as it failed to produce any evidence explaining how an official Airtel receipt was in the possession of Ajeet Solanki. The Commission further noted that Balaji Traders was an authorized channel partner of Airtel at the relevant time, making Airtel vicariously liable for the actions of its agents.
The Commission ruled that Airtel neither completed the porting process nor refunded the money, even after receiving a legal notice, which amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It therefore directed both Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Balaji Traders to jointly or severally refund ₹3,000 with 6% interest per annum from 23 November 2016 till realization, and to pay ₹5,000 as compensation within 45 days. Failure to comply would attract additional interest at the same rate on the compensation amount until payment. The order was pronounced on 3 October 2025.
Cause Title: Gaurav Tiwari VS M/S Bharti Airtel & Ors.
Case No: DC/84/CC/19/265
Coram: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), Ms. Harshali Kaur (Member)
