Complaint filed on: 05-04-2010 Disposed on: 12-11-2010 BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 C.C.No.739/2010 DATED THIS THE 12th NOVEMBER 2010 PRESENT SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER Complainant: - Smt.Anjana Sundar, W/o. C.G.sundar, Aged about 46 years, No.170, 180th Cross, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-40 V/s Opposite party: - M/s. Vodafone Essar South Ltd, Marithi Infotech Centre, 11/1, 12/1, Koramangala, Intermediate Ring Road, Amar Jyothi Layout, Bangalore-71 O R D E R SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party are that she is a subscriber of Vodafone prepaid for the last three years having mobile phone no.9886806681 of OP Company. That she is a practicing advocate for more than 23 years. That she made her call from the above mobile telephone at 8 PM on 8-4-2010 but mobile screen displayed unregistered SIM. She tried to activate it but she could not. As on that day, the 9-4-2009 there was currency worth Rs.960/- in her accounts. She made several calls to customer care of the OP through another phone number to verify as to non functioning of her above stated mobile phone but could not get proper reply. At 5 PM on 9-4-2009 the executives of the OP told her that the above said mobile phone has been assigned to one Altaf of Hubli or Dharwad, she was shocked with that statement, then gave a complaint to the concerned police apprehending misuse of her mobile phone number by other person. Then approached OP executives discussed about this assignment of her phone number who promised her to give duplicate SIM and to deactivate the number given to that Altaf. Then she approached again the concerned police and told them about this development. She was waiting activation of her mobile phone. One Niveditha and Anwar the executives of the OP tried to activate but they could not. The OP then after great struggle activated her mobile phone on 14-4-2009 at 3 PM but her currency balance of Rs.960/- was deducted then she got currency filled to her phone number. Even that, latter on displayed as zero, despite she had made only four calls. The complainant further alleging deficiency in the service of the OP stated that the OP has caused loss of Rs.1045/- by deducting currency and therefore has prayed for allowing the complaint and to direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. 2. OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable and this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. OP has admitted that the complainant is using the mobile telephone line provided by them through mobile phone referred to by the complainant. OP has contended that display in the mobile phone connection of the complainant was due to mis handling of SIM card and stated to had assured the complainant that there was no mistake in the working of network and signals without disputing that the complainant had complained to them regarding non-working of mobile phone. Further admitted to have activated the phone on 14-4-2009 after receipt of the complaint dated 9-4-2009, the OP denying all other allegations of assigning the telephone of the complainant to one Altaf of Hubli denied allegations of deduction of currency balance and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced copy of letters she had addressed to the OP and copies of complaint she had given to OP, OP has not produced any documents. We have heard the complainant who is in person, counsel for the OP and perused the records. 4. On the above materials following points for determination arise. 1) Whether the complainant proves that the Op has caused deficiency in his service in not giving continues service to her mobile phone from 9-4-2009 until 14-4-2009 diverted the connection to another person and that OP has further deducted currency balance of Rs.916/- from her mobile account?. 2) To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to? 5. Our findings are as under: Point no.1: In the affirmative Point no.2: See the final Order REASONS 6. Answer on Point No.1: As noticed from the contentions of the parties, there is no dispute that the complainant availed mobile telephone being no.9886806681 from the OP and it was in use. It is the grievance of the complainant that on 8-4-2009 at 8 PM when she tried to make call, the screen displayed as unregistered SIM, she could not make use of that mobile phone and she had balance currency amounting to Rs.916/-. It is further alleged by the complainant that thereafter she contacted OP executives several times to get her mobile phone activated but could not get it done until 14-4-2009. These facts are not denied by the OP, in the affidavit evidence filed by them. The complainant has next alleged that on verification that executives of the OP namely Smt. Niveditha and Mr. Anwar told her that her telephone number has been assigned to one Altaf of Hubli under a post paid connection facility. The OP though denied this allegation but has not specifically denied such allegation of assuring that phone number to one Altaf. When the complainant has named executives of the OP who gave that information to her the OP could have got affidavit of those executives failed to deny evidence of the complainant, but the OP has not chosen to do so. The OP has also not come forward by giving reason as how the mobile phone of the complainant was not working from 8-4-2009 to 14-4-2009 and evidence of the complainant, in this regard, has not been rebutted. 7. The complainant has further stated in her affidavit that when her mobile phone stopped working she had currency balance of Rs.916/- and when phone was activated on 14-4-2009 she found that entire currency balance was shown as zero, the OP has not even specifically denied this fact as stated by the complainant. Therefore when admittedly the complainant could not use her mobile phone from 8-4-2009 till 14-4-2009 the currency balance should have been intact then how that balance was shown as zero has not been explained by the OP who is the authority could have through light on that. Further allegation of the complainant that after get phone activated she filled currency worth Rs.150/- which was shown as Rs.105/- but after making four calls the balance was shown as Rs.10/- again on 21-7-2009 the balance was shown as zero therefore alleged deficiency. This aspect of tariff can not be adjudicate upon by this forum, in view of the decision reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5631 as relied upon by the counsel for the OP as making calls and deduction of currency come within the meaning of billing a consumer. But the arguments of counsel for the OP that the entire complaint do not fall within the purview of this forum as per the above decision can not be accepted. Because of the fact that the OP allotting telephone of the complainant to one Altaf and deactivating connection of the complainant mobile phone which in our view amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in the service. The complainant in our view has therefore proved that the OP has caused deficiency in their service from 8-4-2009 until 14-4-2009. The complainant being a legal professional suffered at the hands of the OP and consequence could have been much if that phone had been misused by Altaf to whom that number was assigned by the OP. Hence the complaint in our view deserves to be allowed. Thus we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and find it as fit case to award damages for the inconvenience, financial loss and mental agony that the complainant had been put. With the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- has damages to the complainant within 50 days from the date of this order. Failing which, the OP shall pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. Op shall also pay cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 12th November 2010. Member President
| | [HONORABLE Ganganarsaiah] Member[HONORABLE Sri D.Krishnappa] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Anita Shivakumar. K] Member | | 
