Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/189

Bhupinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Navpreet singh

24 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 189 dated 21.09.2020.                                                        Date of decision: 24.11.2022.

 

Bhupinder Kaur aged 45 years wife of S. Kulvinder Singh, resident of House No.213, Ward No.23, Street No.9-1/2, Ganesh Puri, Bagga Kalan, Central Post Office, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                     ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Vodafone Idea Limited (Erstwhile Idea Cellular Limited), C-105, Industrial Area, Phase VII, Mohali-160055, SAS Nagar, through its Regional Manager.
2. Vodafone Idea Limited (Erstwhile Idea Cellular Limited), Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Manager.                                                                                                                          …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Navpreet Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complaint had been availing services of opposite parties through mobile No.95924-92056 for the last more than seven years. On 27.06.2020, the complainant got recharged her mobile phone for Rs.49/- through mobikwik app bearing reference No.KR0508172811000182 and she received a message that recharge is successful but later on, to her utter surprise, she found that the facility of outgoing calls has been discontinued. The complainant had repeatedly visited the showroom of the opposite parties and raised her grievance before them. Initially, only assurance to wait for 72 hours was given but her grievance was not redressed. Again on 04.07.2020, the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties on Annanya Telecom, ATI Road, Ludhiana but to no avail. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts t deficiency in service and the complainant has undergone mental tension and agony. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 09.07.2020 calling upon the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.49/- along with interest @10% per annum from 27.06.2020 till realization besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- but the opposite parties did not respond to the legal notice. In the end, the complainant has claimed refund of the amount of Rs.49/- along with interest @10% per annum as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension and agony and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. 

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written statement in which the opposite parties took certain preliminary objections. The opposite parties have assailed the complaint being vexatious and baseless. The opposite parties have further alleged that there is no jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the present complaint and it is only try-able by Civil Court. In the written statement, the opposite parties have also stated that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint as the recharge of Rs.49/- was done through mobikwik on 27.06.2020 and the amount was only credited to the account of the opposite parties. They have also provided the details of the recharge done by the complainant from November 2018 to December 15, 2020. The opposite parties have denied the receipt of the legal notice and prayer of the complainant. The opposite parties have also sought dismissal of the complaint. 

3.                In support of her claim, the complainant tendered her affidavit Ex. CA in which she reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 invoice dated 27.06.2020, Ex. C2 is the legal notice, Ex. C3 is the copy of postal receipt, Ex. C4 is the screen shot of the recharge dated 27.06.2020, Ex. C5 is the delivery manifest of Department of Post India, Ex. C5/A is letter dated 08.02.2021 of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ludhiana City Division, Ludhiana and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Manoj Madan, authorized signatory of the opposite parties who also tendered documents Ex. OP1 as details of recharge done by the complainant and closed the evidence.  

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                It is undisputed that the complainant having mobile No.95924-92056, is a subscriber of the opposite parties. Instead of making the payment of recharge directly to the opposite parties, the complainant has chosen another platform mobikwik (payment app) for making the payment to the opposite parties. In order to prove the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, the burden of proof for proving the payment was heavily upon the complainant to prove that she has made the payment to the opposite parties. The document Ex. C1 i.e. a snapshot of the invoice for showing the payment in favour of the mobikwik app is not sufficient to prove that the opposite parties have received the payment. More so, when the complainant has not made the mobikwik app or its authorized signatory as opposite party in this case.

7.                On the other hand, the opposite parties for showing their fairness, have produced document ex. R1 showing the periodic factum of recharge and received payments from the period from 06.11.2018 to 15.12.2020. Had the complainant or the mobikwik app paid the price of recharge to the opposite parties, it was all likelihood to be reflected in this statement as well. As such, the complainant has failed to prove the initial burden of discharge. Even otherwise, in our opinion, mobikwik was a necessary and proper party for the just adjudication of the matter in controversy and non-joining of the same is fatal to the case of the complainant.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                         Member                        President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:24.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Bhupinder Kaur Vs Idea Cellular Ltd.                                       CC/20/189

Present:       Sh. Navpreet Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                         Member                        President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:24.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.