Haryana

Sonipat

CC/97/2015

SUNEEL KAUSHIK S/O SHRI RAM KISHAN KAUSHIK - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. PRIYANKA MANAGER VODAFONE STORE,2. VODAFONE DIGILINKS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MANNU MALIK

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                                Complaint No.97 of 2015

                                Instituted on:19.03.2015

                                Date of order:02.11.2015

 

 

Suneel Kaushik son of Shri Ram Kishan Kaushik, resident of H.No.459, Adarsh Nagar, near Adarsh Public School, Sonepat.

 

..Complainant.

 

                        VERSUS

 

1.Ms. Priyanka Manager, Vodafone Store,  Geeta Bhawan Mandir road, near Mittal Hospital, Sonepat.

2.Vodafone Digilink Ltd., Yogesh Tower, Kunjpura road, Karnal through its Manager.

                                             ..Respondents

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mannu Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Parveen Tonk  Adv. for respondents.

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he is the subscriber of the respondents vide Mobile Connection No.9355592000. He has received the bill for the period w.e.f. 7.9.2014 to 6.10.2014 for Rs.1046.33 which was deposited by the complainant.  The complainant has never requested the respondents for activation of I.S.D. Facility on his mobile number.  He also never made any I.S.D. call from his mobile connection no.9355592000 to any person residing Out of India.  But despite this, the respondents at their own have activated the I.S.D. Facility on this mobile number of the complainant.  The respondents have issued the bill for the period 7.10.2014 to 6.11.2014, 7.11.2014 to 6.12.2014,  7.12.2014 to 6.1.2015, 7.1.2015 to 6.2.2015 and 7.2.2015 to 6.3.2015 by adding in all these bills the ISD Charges to the tune of Rs.199/-  with service charges. From the month of October, 2014 the complainant is regularly making complaints to the respondents for deactivation of the ISD facility from his number but of no use and the respondents continuously are issuing the bills by claiming wrong and illegal charges of Rs.199/- per month as ISD Charges from the complainant.  On 5.2.2015, 12.3.2015 and

 13.3.2015 the complainant again and again visited the office of respondent no.1 and the complainant was given only false assurances. The complainant from the month of October, till date is requesting the respondents that when there is no request from his side for activation of ISD facility, then why it was activated and when the complainant has not made any ISD Call to any person living out of India, then why the respondents are charging the ISD  monthly charges at the rate of Rs.199/- besides service charges etc.   However, after a great persuation,  the respondents told that the ISD facility was activated on the request of one Deepak ID No.78586816(Deepak.K-14) for the period 27.9.2014 to 1.7.2017.  The complainant has also requested to the respondents that the said Deepak is not known to the complainant and the respondents are at liberty to take action against the said Deepak on whose request or I.D., ISD facility was activated on the mobile number of the complainant.  But the respondents refused to take any action against the said Deepak and has also failed to give any satisfactory reply in this regard to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainant himself visited the respondents and requested for activation of ISD service on his mobile no.9355592000 and the respondents after verification activated the ISD services.  On 16.4.2015 the respondents being customer friendly company as goodwill gesture provided waiver of Rs.1194/-  on the mobile number of the complainant.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that without the consent and permission of the complainant, the respondents activated the ISD facility on the mobile of the complainant.  On enquiry, the complainant was disclosed that ISD facility was activated on the ID of one Deepak, who is not known to the complainant and the respondents in this way also issued the bills to the complainant wrongly and illegally on the basis of ISD facility. Thus, the respondents not only indulged themselves into unfair trade practice but has also rendered deficient services to the complainant thereby causing him unnecessary mental agony and harassment.

          He has further argued that the present complaint was filed by the complainant against the respondents on 19.3.2015 and for the first time, the respondents appeared on 27.04.2015.  But despite having the knowledge of pendency of the present complaint, the respondents issued the bill for the period 7.5.2015 to 6.6.2015 and 7.6.2015 to 6.7.2015 by charging the ISD charges at the rate of Rs.199/- per month with service charge and it proves the highheadedness of the respondents. The above said fact has also been mentioned by the complainant in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and has also placed on record Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 respectively, the bill for the period 7.5.2015 to 6.6.2015 and 7.6.2015 to 6.7.2015.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant himself visited the respondents and requested for activation of ISD service on his mobile no.9355592000 and the respondents after verification activated the ISD services.  On 16.4.2015 the respondents being customer friendly company as goodwill gesture provided waiver of Rs.1194/-  on the mobile number of the complainant.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          It is also pertinent to mention here that the opportunities were given to the respondents to lead their evidence, but the respondents have merely filed the affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Amit Kumar Singh, Manager-Legal Vodafone Digilink Ltd., New Delhi.

          But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents, because the respondents have failed to produce any record in the shape of any written request made by the complainant for activation of ISD facility on his mobile number.  In our view, when there is no written request from the side of the complainant for activation of ISD facility on his mobile, the respondents have played with the faith of  customer and it is proved that the respondents can do anything with the faith of their customers without their permission and consent. Further activation of ISD facility on any number on the basis of ID of any third person, really and definitely amounts to unfair trade practice and grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the respondents have also indulged themselves into unfair trade practice by doing this wrongful act.  The complainant has also been able to prove the highheadedness of the respondents as the respondents even during the pendency of the present complaint has also issued the bills (Ex.C7 and Ex.C8) to the complainant on the same pattern as were earlier issued to the complainant. So, it is also established that the respondents even during the pendency of the present complaint has also not made any efforts to deactivate the ISD facility from the number of the complainant whereas in the prayer clause, the complainant has specifically prayed for deactivation of the ISD facility from his number.  Thus, from the above act and conduct of the respondents, we have no hesitation in allowing the present complaint and the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount of the bill alongwith service charge which has been issued to him on the basis of wrong and illegal activation of ISD facility, alongwith interest from the respondents. 

          Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and it is also proved that the respondents have indulged themselves into unfair trade practice, in our view, the respondents are liable to compensate the complainant heavily because here we are also considering the act and conduct of the respondents who have no care for the Law of the Land and by considering themselves above the law, they at the back of the customer can do anything wrong and if the respondents are not penalized heavily, it will encourage the respondents to do anything wrong with their customers under the impression that what the complainant has get from the Consumer Forum even by filing the present complaint. In our view, it is a fit case where heavy penalty is to be imposed upon the respondents. Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount & service charge whatsoever has been charged by the respondents from the complainant under the garb of ISD facilities and this amount is directed to be paid to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum w.e.f. the date of activation of ISD facility till its actual realization. 

          Further the respondents are directed to deactivate the ISD facilities from the mobile number of the complainant with immediate effect and in future not to issue any bill to the complainant by charging any amount under ISD facilities. The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.fifty thousands for indulging themselves in an unfair trade practice, for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and also to pay a sum of Rs.three thousands under the head of litigation expenses.  The respondents are further directed to make the compliance of the above said order within one month from the date of passing of this order, otherwise, the law will take its own recourse.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:  02.11.2015