Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/268/2019

Payal Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Jul 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/268/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	23/04/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	16/07/2020

 

 

 

 

 

Payal Garg D/o Sh. Rajiv Garg, R/o H.No.1182, Universal Enclave, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh, through Sh. Rajiv Garg, R/o H.No.1182, Universal Enclave, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh (being the authorized person).

 

……… Complainant

 

Versus

 

Vodafone Idea Limited, Plot No. C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-7, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-160055, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

……. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   RATTAN SINGH THAKUR     PRESIDENT

SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

DR.S.K. SARDANA              MEMBER

                               

 

For Complainant	:	None for Complainant.
For Opposite Party	:	Ms. Rameet Bakshi, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant was using a mobile connection of Airtel Company having Mobile No. 78140-65511 in her name. The Opposite Party has floated an advertisement through pamphlets (Annexure C-3) that if any consumer would pay Rs.499/- p.m. in the post-paid connection then the Company would issue the insurance of their handset for 12 months. Accordingly, the Complainant ported her connection from Airtel to Idea and started using the services of the Opposite Party since 16.09.2018. It has been averred that in the month of March 2019, the handset of the Complainant stopped functioning and accordingly, the father of the Complainant approached the Opposite Party on 02.03.2019 with a request to consider the handset under insurance. At that time, the representative of the Opposite Party told the father of the Complainant that the handset of the Complainant was covered under Nirvana Plan and requested him to wait for 2-3 days and in the meantime, they would send their Technical Expert to collect the defective handset from the house of the Complainant. The father of the Complainant waited sufficiently, but no response had been received from the side of the Opposite Party. The Complainant wrote an e-mail to the Opposite Party on 06.03.2019 (Annexure C-4), but there was no positive response from the side of the Opposite Party. Thereafter, the Complainant sent so many e-mails to the Opposite Party (Annexure C-5 Colly), but to no avail and eventually, refused to consider the legitimate request of the Complainant. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party contested the claim of the Complainant and filed its written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that there was a set process of subscribing to the “Idea Phone Secure Service” and the Complainant never completed the said process of registration on the Idea Phone Secure (IPS) App (Annexure OP-1). The answering Opposite Party was only a medium between the Insurer (New India Assurance Company Limited), the insured and the beneficiary/user (Annexure OP-2). It has been pleaded that the Complainant concealed the e-mails exchanged between her brother and the answering Opposite Party (Annexure OP-3 colly), which showed that before the filing of the complaint the Complainant/ her brother/ her father were well aware of the fact that they never completed the process of registering on the above-mentioned Idea Phone Secure (IPS) App. Thus, denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the Opposite Party, through video conferencing, and also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.

 

6.      It is the allegation of the Complainant that despite the offer by the Opposite Party itself that if any consumer would pay Rs.499/- p.m. in post paid connection, then the OP-Company would issue the insurance of their handset for 12 months, the genuine request of the Complainant within those 12 months have not been redressed.

 

7.      There is no dispute regarding the acceptance of the offer by the Complainant, meaning thereby the Complainant paid the required amount to port her connection from Airtel to Idea with the attraction of the aforesaid Scheme only. However, within those 12 months, the handset of the Complainant stopped functioning and despite various personal requests Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the Complainant to fulfill its own offered Scheme/Offer and till date the grievance of the Complainant has not been redressed.

 

8.      Admittedly, the amount in question of Rs.499/- for the purpose of issuing the insurance of the handset of the Complainant has been charged by the OP-Company, but it has been contended by the Opposite Party in its reply that it was the Complainant herself who did not complete the process of registering on the Idea Phone Secure App.

 

9.      We are of the opinion that if the Opposite Party can charge the amount in question for the purpose of alluring its customers to get them ported from any other portal to their own, it was the foremost duty of the Opposite Party only to get in touch with its consumer (Complainant herein) whether she has been properly registered with the insurance company or not.

 

10.      It is the contention of the Opposite Party that it is only a medium between the Insurer (New India Assurance Co. Limited), the Insured and the beneficiary/user. Evidently, the Complainant was never in touch with the Insurance Company rather the services were provided by the OP-Company only, hence we feel that despite charging the requisite amount the act of the Opposite Party for non-providing the proper services within the time limit and forcing the Complainant to approach this Forum for this unnecessary litigation proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.

 

11.      The Complainant in her prayer clause has prayed for the entire amount on account of the repair/replacement of the defective parts in the mobile to the tune of Rs.18,000/-. However, per material on record, to our mind, we cannot grant such a relief to him, as there is nothing on record which could substantiate that the for the repair/ replacement of the defective parts the Complainant had to spent Rs.18,000/-. However, since the Opposite Party proved to be deficient in rendering proper services to the Complainant, in our considered opinion, if a compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/- along with Rs.7,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings, is granted to her, it would be reasonable, fair and adequate.

 

12.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed to:-

[a]  To pay Rs.10,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[b] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

13.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @7% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation of Rs.7,000/-.  

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
15.  

16^th July, 2020                                                           

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (DR.S.K. SARDANA)

       MEMBER

 

“Dutt”