Haryana

Bhiwani

71

Suraj Chand son of Shri Naresh Kumar, resident of Bhiwani. - Complainant(s)

Versus

manager vodafone - Opp.Party(s)

suraj kumar

21 Aug 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 71
 
1. Suraj Chand son of Shri Naresh Kumar, resident of Bhiwani.
resident of Bhiwani
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. manager vodafone
biju tower maham road bhiwani
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Jindal PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Balraj Singh MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Ansuya Bishnoi MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.                         

                                                            Complaint No.: 71 of 2014.

                                                            Date of Institution: 6.3.2014.

                                                            Date of Decision: 21-8-.2015.

 

Suraj son of Shri Naresh Kumar, resident of Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.                                                                           

….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

  1. The Manager, Vodafone Store, Opp. Biju Tower, Meham Gate, Bhiwani.
  2. Appellate Officer, Vodafone Diglink Ltd. 173, HSIDC, Industrial Area, Sector-3, Karnal.
  3. The Manager, Mittal, Industrial Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 059                                                                         

…...Respondents. 

 

                    COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                    THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:         Shri Balraj Singh, Member,

                    Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member,        

 

Present:       Complainant in person.  

Shri M.S.Parmar, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

Respondent No.3 ex parte.

                

O R D E R

 

BALRAJ SINGH, MEMBER:   

 

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that he was having a Vodafone post paid connection bearing No.9541438383. The complainant alleged that on 14th Jan. 2014 the services of the above said Vodafone connection was disconnected from 6.00 A.M. to 2.03 P.M. The complainant further alleged that he visited the office of respondents and narrated the facts upon which the connection was restored. The complainant further alleged that due to poor facility of services provided by the respondents, he had to suffer very shameful to his known as well as family members. The complainant further alleged that he made several calls on telephone No.9813098130, 9813090002 and 9813090003 i.e. the service centre of the company and written several letters as well as sent e-mail to stop the above said connection and to pay compensation but they did not pay any heed.  The complainant further alleged that he had taken monthly plan amounting to Rs.899/- but they have wrongly and illegally changed the plan worth Rs.1299/-. The complainant further alleged that the respondents have wrongly and illegally added a sum of Rs.800/- in the bill and as such he is not liable to pay the same. The complainant further alleged that the respondents have provided very poor services and as such he is entitled for compensation. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Respondents No.1 & 2 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent is licensed cellular service provider having been granted license by the department of telecommunication, Ministry of Communication, Govt. of India, under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It is submitted that the UOI vide notification dated 24.5.1999 had conferred the power of telegraph authority to all the private cellular services providers within the meaning of Section 19B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It is also submitted that the answering respondents have not changed the plan without prior intimation of the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant was active on high value 1299 plan as per agreement form duly signed by him on 9.1.2014. It is further submitted on 8.2.2014 the complainant made a call at the Vodafone Call Centre and requested for change of plan from High Value 1299 to Value 199 per Second Plan. It is further submitted that the answering respondents have not initiated caller tune service without prior request of the complainant. It is also submitted that the complainant is liable to make payment of the services availed and mere disconnection of services does not absolve the complainant from performance of his part of contract. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs.1421.97 paisa are outstanding towards the complainant and as such, he is liable to deposit with the answering respondents.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondents bank and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                Respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 13.3.2015 as none has come present on his behalf despite several calls.

4.                 Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits to prove their respective versions.

5.                   We have heard the complainant in person as well as learned counsel for Ops No.1 & 2 at length.

 

6.                 The complainant has argued that on 14th Jan. 2014 the services of his Vodafone connection was disconnected from 6.00 A.M. to 2.03 P.M without any reason and on several visits his services was restored. He further argued that due to poor facility of services provided by the respondents, he had to suffer very shameful to his known as well as family members. It is further contended that he made several calls on telephone No.9813098130, 9813090002 and 9813090003 i.e. the service centre of the company and written several letters as well as sent e-mail to stop the above said connection and to pay compensation but they did not pay any heed.  The further arguments of the complainant is that he had taken monthly plan amounting to Rs.899/- but the OPs have wrongly and illegally changed the plan worth Rs.1299 and have wrongly and illegally added a sum of Rs.800/- in the bill and as such he is not liable to pay the same.

7.                On the other hand, counsel for Ops No.1 & 2 argued that the Ops have not changed the plan without prior intimation of the complainant and his above said connection was active on high value 1299 plan as per agreement form duly signed by him on 9.1.2014. He further argued that on 8.2.2014 the complainant made a call at the Vodafone Call Centre and requested for change of plan from High Value 1299 to Value 199 Per Second Plan.  It is further contended that the complainant is liable to make payment of the services availed him and mere disconnection of services does not absolve the complainant from performance of his part of contract. Ld counsel for the Ops argued that an amount of Rs.1421.97 paisa are outstanding towards the complainant and as such, he is liable to deposit with the answering respondents. 

8.                After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties at length and having gone through the material available on the record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal, as there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  From the perusal of Annexure R2 Photostat copy of customer application form which is duly signed by the complainant vide which it has been clearly established that the complainant has signed the application after duly gone through the same. Moreover, the photo of the complainant is also affixed on this application form. So, the plea taken by the complainant that that he had taken monthly plan amounting to Rs.899/- but the OPs have wrongly and illegally changed the plan worth Rs.1299/- is without basis and has no merit in the eyes of law.  The plea of the complainant is also without basis that the respondents have wrongly and illegally added a sum of Rs.800/- in the bill and as such he is not liable to pay the same because the complainant has failed to disclose the period for which the above said amount has been charged from him.  Moreover, the allegations of the complainant are also without basis that on 14th Jan. 2014 the services of his Vodafone connection were disconnected from 6.00 A.M. to 2.03 P.M because he himself admitted in his complaint that due to Network Problem this trouble came into the system of the Ops and the same was put right accordingly.

9.                Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 21.8.2015.

 

     (Ansuya Bishnoi)                                         (Balraj Singh)

             Member.                                                       Member

  District Consumer Disputes                  District Consumer Disputes

  Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Jindal]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Balraj Singh]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Ansuya Bishnoi]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.