Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

          This is an appeal filed by the org. opponent against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Central Mumbai in consumer complaint No.92/2007.  By the said judgement, District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint partly and directed the M/s.Vodafone Essar Ltd. /appellant to pay `10,000/- for mental and physical harassment to the complainant and also to pay `5,000/- towards costs.  As such, org. opponent has filed this appeal.

          The facts lie in the narrow compass.

          The complainant being a businessman has to go to different countries of the world. On 23/06/2007 he had gone to China.  He had requested the appellant-Company to provide him international roaming facility.  Immediately, on the same day, said facility was given and for that purpose from the prepaid account of the complainant `99/- were deducted towards charges.  Thereafter, he found that after going to China, he could not make mobile calls from China to anywhere despite the fact that in his mobile account `1,000/- was in balance.  He could not even contact his family members in India.  For every call received by him he was charged `65/- and thereby, gradually his prepaid account got reduced.  He was given incoming calls, but still all the while his mobile account was decreasing day-by-day if he received any call from India.  He came back to India and contacted official of Customer Care Service and told the difficulties he faced.  He was told by the Customer Care Service Official that the complainant was provided with such a network whereby the complainant was not having facility to make out going calls from China.  According to the complainant, he was given this information by the opponent/Company.  He pleaded in his complaint that in China, even for making ISD call, one has to take prior permission of the Chinese Government.  Therefore, he could not contact his family members while touring in China.  He pleaded that because of that he could not contact his clients from China and he suffered loss of business of two transactions and each was worth `5 Lakhs.  He, therefore, filed consumer complaint claiming damages besides costs. 

          Appellant-Company filed its written version and admitted that on the request of the complainant on 22/06/2007 he was given international roaming facility and on 04/07/2007 said facility was terminated and he was charged as per the schedule.  The Company denied that they had not provided international roaming facility while complainant was in China.  According to the Company, complainant had not proved that he had suffered loss of `5 Lakhs in his business since he could not contact his clients on mobile while he was in China.  District Consumer Forum observed that while in China, he was not given facility of international roaming.  Opponent had charged for international roaming, but he was not given services when he was in China.  He could not even contact his family members in India.  Customer Care Service Official Ms.Alphia had told the complainant that in China their Company had Tie-up with three Networks and nobody goes out of network.  Forum below was of the view that the appellant-Company was guilty of deficiency in service.  In as much as the Company had not provided international roaming facility to the complainant and even he could not contact his own family members from China on the said mobile phone.  Forum below also noted that there was copy of agreement placed on record by the appellant-Company, but that agreement was only for 6 months and therefore, that agreement come to an end and there was no existing agreement between the Appellant-Company and Chinese counterpart for giving any mobile international roaming facility to the person like complainant.

          We heard Mr.Uttamchand, Advocate for the appellant and Ms.Monika, Advocate for the respondent.

          In the course of arguments, we asked Counsel for the appellant whether they had produced on record anything to show that there was tie-up between three Chinese Companies on the one hand and appellant-Company on the other hand to show that at the time of visit to China by the complainant/respondent herein they could provide international roaming facility (incoming and outgoing) to the complainant without interruption.  No such material is placed on record.  Decrease of amount from the prepaid account of the respondent is also not evidenced by showing any statement of account.  In the circumstances, Forum below, it appears has rightly decided the complaint holding that the appellant-Company was guilty of deficiency in service and therefore, Forum below seems to have rightly allowed the complaint to give some reliefs to the complainant.  Forum below has just awarded an amount of `10,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and `5,000/- as costs.

          In the circumstances, we are finding that the Forum below rightly passed judgement and award in favour of the respondent and we are finding no substance in the appeal preferred by the org. opponent.  There was deficiency in service on the part of appellant and for the deficiency in service, Forum below has given some reasonable compensation to the complainant/respondent herein.  We are finding no circumstances justifying us to interfere with the order passed by the District Consumer Forum.  In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that the order passed by the Forum below is just and proper.  Hence, we pass the following order :-

                   -: ORDER :-

1.       Appeal stands dismissed.

2.       No order as to costs.

3.       Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.