IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC /100/2014.

 Date of Filing:               28.07.2014.                                          Date of Final Order: 28.01.2016.

Complainant: Md. Younus Ali, Vill. + P.O. Sheikhpara, Raninagar, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin-742308.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Manager, Franchise of Vodafone Salulor Ltd, New Rajen Trades, 378, Netaji Road,

                        Khagra, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin -742103.

                       Present:  Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya   ………………….President.                                 

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.           

                                                                        Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member

FINAL ORDER

Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.

 The fact of the complainant’s case u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 is that the complainant /Md. Younus Ali is a consumer of Vodafone by submitting identification papers since 6/7 years back, but on July, 2013 he received one SMS with request to submit the identity papers to a local Vodafone Mini Store, either wise his connection will be stopped. Complainant submitted the papers and again received SMS to collect a new SIM card from a definite store within a specific period. The complainant complied the instruction and then the old SIM was stopped. So, he informed the matter to local Vodafone Mini Store, who assured that it will be activated within 10-15  days with old number, but due to non-activation , the complainant visited the Vodafone Store at Khagra/the OP , who asked him to wait for 7 days . After that another 7 days had gone, then third time on 25 the August, 2013, he went to the store of OP and again by  submitting identity papers received new SIM card which was assured to activate within 10 days . But it was not activated even after 15 days. So, the complainant met the OP and the OP gave reason of defect of server, and after a long wait the complainant submitted a written complaint on 7.02.2014. Till it is not activated. So the complainant came to this Forum for proper redress.

            On the other hand the OP appeared in this case by filing V-name but till now did not file any written version. So, the case is taken up as ex parte against the OP.

The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for or not and or also whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP or not.

                                                       Decision with Reasons.

The complaint has submitted some documents in support of his case.

Perused the documents on the record, we observed that the complainant submitted some Xerox copies of SMS received by the complainant in his mobile from the OP regarding the matter, which evident the allegation raised by the complainant that OP asked him to submit the identity papers to avoid the disconnection of mobile. Besides, this one message also shows that the OP requested to the complainant to submit the papers and to collect free SIM from a particular person. All those instructions were send through messages by the OP, but after comply the instruction by the complainant, the OP did not comply his role i.e.  give the new connection to the complainant.

Moreover, the complainant had no trouble with his mobile connection yet the OP asked the complainant to change the SIM, but the OP failed to give the connection. We also unable to know the view of the OP, as because, he was not present to rebut the allegations. But it is t rue that the complainant lost his mobile connection without any cogent reason, which is result of gross negligence in service on the part of the OP.

On the basis of the above discussions, we observed that the complainant had no fault in this matter; rather problem created and gave up without solution by the OP. So, we have no other alternative but to conclude that the case that the complainant is entitled to get the relief i.e get back the mobile connection in his old number from the OP. We are of view that the complainant should also get Rs.10, 000/- as compensation for his long period harassment.

Considering the above facts and circumstances we find that the case be allowed ex parte and the complainant will get back his mobile connection with his old number along with amount of Rs.10,000/- as a compensation for harassment by the OP.

Hence,

                                                            Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 100/2014 be and the same is hereby allowed ex parte without any order as to cost.

The OP is directed to give the mobile connection to the complainant in his old number along with amount of Rs.10, 000/- as compensation to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the OP has to pay @Rs.50/- per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under registered post  to the concerned OP as per rules, for information and necessary action.