By Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- The complainant is a ‘Vodaphone’ customer. On July, 2018 he recharged a offer recharge offered 1.4 G.B data service per day and unlimited talk time to any network but he did not get the full service on all those days. The call was repeatedly interrupted from 16th to 25th August 2018 and all service was stopped 5 days before the offer ending day. Again he recharged for Rs.458/- on 6-10-2018 but he did not receive full offered data. On 09-10-2018 all service again interrupted. The complainant had never been got a satisfied answer from the customer care and not reinstate the service on the interrupted day itself. So, the complainant had suffered many difficulties and had mental agony. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 4,500/- and cost of Rs. 35,000/-.
3. Notice to the Opposite parties was served but OP-1 not entered appearance and hence the name of 1st opposite party called on 15.10.2019 and declared the opposite party as ex parte. 2nd opposite party entered appearance but subsequently on 15.11.2019 his name also called absent and set ex parte.
4. On perusal of complaint and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether any lack of service and negligence on the part of opposite
parties?
2. Relief and cost.
5. The Complainant was examined as PW-1 and Exhibits A-1 to A-4 documents were marked on his side. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence and submission the Forum ordered as follows:-
6. Point No. 1 & 2 :- These points are considered together for the sake of brevity and convenience. This is a complaint filed by the complainant, consumer under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party, relating fault and disruption of service. The complainant produced Ext. A-1 to A-4 documents. The opposite parties herein failed to appear before the Forum and submit their version and not produced any evidence to rebut the contentions. In our opinion the 1st opposite party is not a necessary party in this case. The 2nd opposite party is having a legal obligation to appear before the Forum and submit his version and explain the actual things what are happened in this case. But he utterly failed to respond and hence the Forum can come to the conclusion that the complaint is genuine and the complainant has deserved the relief he sought. In view of the availability of various provisions of law and recent enactments, in the field of telecommunication we are of the considered opinion that the persons who avails the service on consideration from service providers of telecommunication are considered to be a consumer, and they are entitled to approach the Consumer Forum for the redressal of their grievances. Hence the forum found that there is lack of service and negligence on the part of opposite party
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The second opposite party is directed to pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 3rd day of January 2020.
Date of filing:11.10.2018.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant.:-
PW1. Binoy Thomas. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Bill. dt:06.10.2018
A2. Copy of Message.
A3. Call list.
A4. Copy of Message.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
