Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/193/2019

Sh. Raj Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular, Vodafone Idea Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

22 Jan 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

 

Appeal No.	:	193 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	28.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	22.01.2020

 

Raj Arora son of Sh. Sangat Ram Arora R/o H.No.1162, First Floor, Sector 37-B, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1. Vodafone Idea Ltd., SCO 495-96, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh – 160036 (Supplier).
2. Vodafone Idea Ltd., C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-VII, Mohali – 160055, Punjab (Punjab Regional Office).
3. Vodafone Idea Ltd., (formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.), An Aditya Birla Group and Vodafone Partnership, Suman Tower, Plot No.18, Sector 11, Gandhinagar – 382011 (Regd. Head Office).
4. Vodafone India Ltd., 8^th Floor, The Birla Centurion Plot No.794, B Wing, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400030 (Corporate Office).

…Respondents/Opposite Parties.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Ms. Preeti Sharma, authorized representative of the appellant.

Ms. Rameet Bakshi, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by the complainant against order dated 11.07.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, his complaint bearing No.717 of 2018 was dismissed by the said Forum.

2.             The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he purchased Idea Postpaid mobile no.9914141119 from Idea Store, Sector 37, Chandigarh in 2008. He suffered stroke in the year 2009 & 2012, therefore, he gave the said number to his son, namely, Dr. Viabhav Raj from November 2009 and gave him the authority to use the number. The son of the complainant visited USA from 23.10.2018 to 31.10.2018 and for that purpose he activated international roaming on the said number on 21.10.2018. However, the said number did not work at all during the said period. He registered a complaint but he was told to wait for 2 days for resolution but the issue was not resolved. He did not even receive a complaint number on his e-mail. The son of the complainant also could not use the bank account for any transaction through mobile banking. He survived just on US$ 1000, which he had carried. However, on reaching India on 01.11.2018, the number started working at New Delhi. On 08.11.2018, the complainant’s son narrated the gross inconvenience and loss that he had to suffer due to poor services of the opposite parties and asked for compensation and resolution of the grievance to which he received complaint No.119399063473 from the Idea and he was assured to get the resolution within three days but to no effect. In the bill received on 23.11.2018, the opposite parties charged for international roaming. He also lodged complaint at National Consumer Helpline in the first week of December 2018 and also sent an e-mail to the opposite parties but to no avail. Hence, complaint was filed before the Forum seeking various reliefs.

3.             The stand of the opposite parties before the Forum was that on receipt of complaint received qua the said number on 24.10.2018 regarding “international roaming voice connectivity issue”, was duly addressed. To corroborate their stand, the opposite parties placed on record snap shots showing the generation of the complaint and the resolution of the said complaint (Annexures OP-5 & OP-6). Rest of the Allegations were denied by the opposite parties.

4.             The Forum dismissed the complaint by holding in Paras 7 to 9 as under:-

“7.    Per contra, the case of the OPs is that they have activated the international roaming facility on the mobile phone of the complainant without any activation charges and to prove the same, the OPs have placed on record snap shot as Annexure OP-2 showing the said activation and zero activation charges. To rebut the plea of the complainant that Dr.Vaibhav Raj was not using the triband mobile handset, the OPs have placed on record snap shot (Annexure OP-3) to show that Dr.Vaibhav Raj was using the mobile phone make Nokia Lumia 510 having options of automatic and manual both.  This fact finds corroboration from the snap shot (Annexure OP-3)   placed on record by the OPs.

8.     As regards the plea of the complainant is that there was only option i.e. automatic in the mobile phone used by his son is concerned, the same is negated by the OPs by placing on record the photocopy of User Guide of Nokia Lumia 510 downloaded from the website as Annexure OP-4 to show that the mobile phone in question was having two options i.e. automatic and manual and it was for the user to select the right option in the mobile phone to activate the international roaming facility.

9.    Besides this, the OPs have clearly submitted in the reply that though there was a complaint received qua the said number on 24.10.2018 regarding “international roaming voice connectivity issue”, the same was with a Sr.No.S1-118906083535 and not S1-118906083532 as alleged and this fact finds corroboration from the snap shot placed on record as Annexure OP-5 showing the generation of the complaint. Besides this, the OPs have also placed on record the snap shot showing the resolution of the said complaint as Annexure OP-6. Keeping in view of the above findings, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against the OPs and as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed.”

5.             During the course of arguments, Counsel for the respondent/opposite parties argued that the number was in the name of the complainant whereas his son Dr. Vaibhav Raj was using it and as such, he is not a consumer. In this regard, it may be stated here that the Dr. Vaibhav Raj, who is the son of the complainant, was using the said number being his beneficiary and as such, he is definitely a consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

6.             Further we are not convinced with aforesaid findings given and observations made by the Forum.

7.                     The Forum placed reliance on record snap shot (Annexure OP-3) to come to the conclusion that Dr. Vaibhav Raj was not using the triband mobile handset but was using the mobile phone make Nokia Lumia 510 having options of automatic and manual both. If for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the son of the complainant was using a Nokia handset, in question, the fact is that how Dr. Vaibhav Raj, who is a layman to all these internal settings, could think that international roaming would not work in his handset. Though international roaming was activated by the opposite parties on the said mobile handset but it was also their duty and responsibility to resolve the problem by informing the complainant as regards the internal settings of his mobile handset whether it was a triband or non-triband mobile handset. Had Dr. Vaibhav Raj was in the know of internal settings of his mobile, the problem could have been resolved then and there. The opposite parties by placing on record snapshort/document (Annexure OP-6) tried to establish that the problem as regards international roaming was resolved. However, in fact, it shows that the complaint was closed as customer was not contactable. Placing on record this documents, in our opinion, is not enough to corroborate their case that the problem was resolved. The fact remains that international roaming did not work on the mobile handset of the complainant during his stay abroad. It is not the matter of concern here that whether Dr. Vaibhav Raj was using a triband or non-triband handset mobile but it is a case, where the opposite parties did not extend due and proper service to him. Once it was well within the knowledge of the opposite parties that they activated international roaming in such a mobile handset which is not a triband one, they could inform Dr. Vaibhav Raj by making a single call or through a SMS that internal settings need to be adjusted for taking benefit of international roaming. Nothing has been placed on record by the opposite parties in this regard and mere document (Annexure OP-6) would not help them to corroborate their plea that the problem of Dr. Vaibhav Raj was duly resolved.

8.             In our opinion, for the facility of international roaming, which could not be availed by the complainant due to deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties, the billing of charging on account of international roaming for the period in question was itself wrong and illegal.

9.             For deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. In our opinion, an amount of Rs.20,000/- if granting as lumpsum compensation, would meet the ends of justice.

10.           In our considered opinion, the Forum  wrongly dismissed the complaint without appreciating the facts and material available on record and as such, the impugned order passed by the Forum being illegal and arbitrary is liable to be set aside and the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant deserves to be partly allowed.

11.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.07.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh, dismissing consumer complaint bearing No.717 of 2018, is set aside. Consumer Complaint bearing No.717 of 2018 is partly allowed against the respondents/opposite parties with costs and they are, jointly and severally, directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as lumpsum compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and costs of litigation to the appellant/complainant, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @9% per annum, from the date of filing the complaint till actual realization.

12.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

13.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced                                                                         

22.01.2020.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad