Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/442/2006

P.Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M.B.Gopalan

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   24.07.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :   11.01.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

            DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II          

C.C.NO.442/2006

WEDNESDAY THIS  11^th DAY OF JANUARY 2017

P. Ashok Kumar,

13/6A, Skylark Apartments,

Rutland Gate 5^th Street,

Thousand Lights,

Chennai -6.                                               .. Complainant.

 

                        ..Vs..

1.  SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

11, Parliament Street,

New Delhi 110 001.

 

2. M/s. Vodafone Essar South Ltd.,  

Rep. by  its Manager,

Belicia Towers,

Chennai – 28.                                                    ..Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the Complainant           : M/s. Gopalan & other   

Counsel for the opposite parties       : appeared in person

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.554.67, Rs.648.46 and 13.87  and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and to pay cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

The complainant who is employed as a senior official in New India Assurance Co. Ltd Regional Office, Chennai availed Credit card No.4006 6760 1442 0494 on the basis of severe canvassing by agents of the 1^st opposite party.   The complainant was promised and assured prompt service and substantial benefits by the sales agents.   The card was received by the opposite party under letter dated 23.3.2004.  The complainant started using the card from April 2004 and was always prompt and punctual to settle the monthly bills without default as and when monthly statements were received.  The complainant always settled the entire amounts punctually.  In May 2004, the complainant was transferred to Chennai where also the card was settled regularly.  The statement of accounts of the bank would clearly establish the punctuality of the complainant.

2.     For a short time before the complainant got regular telephone connection officially, he was constrained to avail mobile connection 98840 54306 from the 2^nd opposite party.  However complainant discontinued use of the mobile connection from 6.7.2004 when the complainant obtained landline connection.   The complainant had informed Mr.Suresh, Customer Care Executive of the 2^nd opposite party and conveyed his decision to discontinue the Hutch Mobile connection and instructed for immediate deactivation of the line.   This was agreed to and acted upon by the 2^nd opposite party as of 6.7.2004.  Thereafter the complainant did not use the mobile phone.

3.     The complainant had settled the dues for the mobile connection of the 2^nd opposite party by 6.7.2004 and no further amount was due.   The deactivation of the mobile connection and settlement of the dues to the 2^nd opposite party was duly informed to the opposite parties through their respective customer service.   The 1^st opposite party was instructed not to make any debits towards mobile connection through letters dated 6.7.2004 and 12.7.2004.   However, to the shock and surprise of the complainant he received statement of accounts in July 2005 in which debits were made for payment to the 2^nd opposite party for sums of Rs.554.67, Rs.648.46 and Rs.13.87 respectively.  

4.     The complainant immediately wrote to the 1^st opposite party pointing out to the erroneous debits and seeking reversal of the entries of wrongful debits which ought not to have been in  as much as the disconnection of the mobile phone service had been duly communicated equally, the realization of the said amounts from the credit card by the 2^nd opposite party is fraudulent.    However the 1^st opposite party failed and neglected to rectify the wrongful debit.   Instead to add insult to injury a further debit of Rs.13.87 was made on which is yet another blatant misuse of the card by the opposite parties, ignoring the instructions and notices of the complainant.

5.     The complainant thereafter took up the matter with the opposite parties through several letters and telephone calls but there was never any responsible reply to the same.   Although thankfully, no further debits were made, the opposite parties failed and neglected to reverse the wrongful debits by suitable adjustments.   Though the complainant did not sent any notice shockingly, a reply notice was received from Mr.Manu Beri, Advocate, Delhi as if it was in reply to a notice dated March 2005 of the complainant.   The complainant issued a suitably reply through his advocate thereafter on 3.6.2005.   This shows clearly the reckless attitude of the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party never cared to reply or clarify as to how it made such wrongful collections.  Although the 1^st opposite party promised to redress the grievance of the complainant early, it has failed and neglected to do so.  The 2^nd opposite party never card to respond.

6.     On 12.4.2006 the complainant received a notice from Mr.V.Jayamugunthan, Advocate dated 5.1.2006 on behalf of the 1^st opposite party as if a huge sum of Rs.9,836.57 is overdue as on 1.4.2006.  It is not known how a notice dated 5.1.2006 makes reference to a due on 1.4.2006.  This notice was received on 12.4.2006 and demanded that the complainant should attend a conciliation on 15.4.2006.  Being surprised at such a notice, the complainant sent a reply to the advocate through his advocate stating the nature of dispute and his willingness to attend a conciliation if reasonable notice was given.   To the further surprise of the complainant, the notice to Mr.V.Jayamugunthan has been returned unserved.   The 1^st opposite party thus appears to be adopting devious tactics to confuse, harass and coerce customers to pay illegal and unlawful demands without actually even addressing genuine grievances against wrongful bills.  The complainant is being harassed with threats over telephone by various unknown persons calling on behalf of the 1^st opposite party, last of which was received on 14.7.2006.

7.     The conduct of the opposite parties in wrongfully debiting the account of the complainant, subsequently demanding unreasonable charges without reversing the entry amounts to gross deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

8.     Inspite of service of notice, the opposite party-1 is called absent and set exparte.

9. Written Version of  2^nd opposite party is  in brief as follows:

           The 2^nd opposite party denies all the allegations, averments contained in the complaint as frivolous, vexatious besides being false.   Merely deciding to discontinue the mobile connection cannot be construed as surrendering of mobile connection.  Hence the averment of the complaint that he did not use the mobile phone is made only for the purpose of this case.    Since the complainant had crossed his credit limit this opposite party requested the complainant  to make the ad hoc payment of Rs.800/- and accordingly the complainant made the ad hoc payment on 14.6.2004.  It is further submitted the actual usage charges for the billing period between 21.5.2004 to 20.6.2004 of the complainant was 1214/-.  However during the period 21.6.2004 to 20.7.2004 since the complainant had exceeded his credit limit twice, amounts of Rs.554.67 and Rs.648.46 was debited from his account.  Thereafter, the complainant after receipt of the bill had remitted a sum of Rs.415/- being the balance amount for the period 21.5.2004 to 20.6.2004 by cash on 7.6.2004.  

10.    The complainant had not made any request of deactivation till 12.7.2004 and on receipt of his request for deactivation the same was processed and the complainant was completely deactivated from the opposite party’s network on 31.7.2004.   The complainant usage charges for the period 21.6.2004 to 20.7.2004 was amounting to Rs.1218/- and up to that date of 20.7.2004 there was a balance of rs.13.87 unpaid.   Therefore, this opposite party had debited the said sum from the complainant credit card.  It is further submitted as the complainant was completely deactivated from the opposite party network on 31.7.2004, the prorata rental for the period 21.7.2004 to 31.7.2004 amounted to a sum of Rs.11/- and this was debited from the complainant’s credit card account subsequently.  Therefore, none of these debits can be termed as erroneous debits or wrongful debit.    Therefore the various allegations alleged by the complainant suffers lack of bonafide that this opposite party had committed any deficiency in service.   Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

11.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit along with for evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A40 marked.  Proof affidavit of 2^nd opposite party not filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite party.

 

12.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

13. Point No.1

        Regarding this point, on careful perusal of the evidence adduced by the complainant it is learnt that the complainant using the credit card No. 4006 6760 1442 0494 obtained from the opposite party-1 and he always prompt and to settle the monthly bill without default, when the monthly statement were received.  In this connection Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 statement of account are marked. In the mean time before the complainant got regular telephone connection officially, he was constrained to avail mobile connection 9884054305 from the 2^nd opposite party and thereafter the complainant discontinued use of the mobile connection from 6.7.2004 on obtaining the landline connection.  It is further stated that the said fact was informed to the customer care executive of 2^nd opposite party and conveyed his decision to discontinue the Hutch Mobile connection and instructed for immediate deactivation of the line and the same was agreed  and acted upon by the 2^nd opposite party as of 6.7.2004.   Thereafter the complainant did not use the mobile phone.  The said letter is marked as Ex.A4 and the letter dated 12.7.2004 were sent to the opposite parties 1 & 2 respectively which is marked as Ex.A5 & Ex.A6. 

14.    It is further noticed from the evidence of the complainant that he had settled the dues of the mobile connection of the opposite party on 6.7.2004 and no further amount dues and the same was duly informed to the customer service and not to make any debits towards mobile connection through the above letters Ex.A5.  Further, on perusal of the evidence, it is stated that the complainant received the statement of account July 2005 in which debits were made for payment to the 2^nd opposite party for sums of Rs.554.67, 648.46 and Rs.13.87 respectively.   Thereafter, the complainant took up the matter through several letters and telephone calls but there was no reply for the same and the opposite parties failed to reverse wrong debits to suitable adjustments.

15.    In this circumstances, though the complainant did not send any notice, shockingly reply notice received from Mr. Manu Beri Advocate, Delhi as if it was in reply to a notice dated March 2005 of the complainant and for which the complainant is suitable reply through his counsel on 3.6.2005 which is marked as Ex.A34.  Again on 12.4.2006 the complainant was received a notice from opposite party-1 dt.5.1.2006 which is marked as Ex.A38  as if a huge sum of Rs.9,836.57 is overdue as on 1.4.2006 and immediately the complainant sent a reply Ex.A39 through his counsel but the same was returned and un-served which is marked as Ex.A40.  It is further stated by the complainant that when he attempted to put forth his genuine grievance, these persons merely demand payment and make crude threats without any care or concern for the complainant’s status or position and therefore this complaint is constrained to file this complaint for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and in order to substantiate this case, the complainant produced Ex.A7 to Ex.A32.

16.    On the other hand it is seen that though the 2^nd opposite party has filed written version but in spite of sufficient opportunities given to the opposite party-2 has not come forward to put forth his evidence by means of filing of proof affidavit and in order to disprove the evidence of the complaint and  to rebut the documents filed on behalf of the complainant, which clearly reveals the facts that the averments made in the written version cannot sustainable.   Not only that the opposite party-1 already remained exparte.   Such being so, it is needless to say that the evidence adduced by the complainant and the documents produced on the side of the complainant are all very well sustainable and thereby acceptable one.

17.    In the light of the above facts and circumstances this forum concludes that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties.  Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

18.    POINT No.2

          As per the decision arrived in point No.1, the opposite party-1 directed to recover the amount of Rs.554.67, Rs.648.46, and Rs.13.87 and to reverse the statement of accounts and opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay reasonable compensation for causing mental agony due to the deficiency in service with cost. Thus the point No.2 is also answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.   Accordingly the opposite party-1 is directed to recover the amount of Rs.554.67, Rs.648.46 and Rs.13.87  from the opposite party-2 which was wrongly debited in the complainant’s accounts and to reverse the statement of accounts and opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to deficiency of service on the part of them and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. 

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of payment.

         Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  11^th  day  of  January 2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  16.4.2004 - Copy of card Statement of opposite party-1

Ex.A2- 16.5.2004  - Copy of Card statement of opposite party-1.

Ex.A3- 16.6.2004  - Copy of card statement of opposite party-1

Ex.A4- 6.7.2004    - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-2.

Ex.A5-12.7.2004   - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-1.

Ex.A6- 12.7.2004  - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-2.

Ex.A7- 14.7.2004  - Copy of letter from opposite party-1.

Ex.A8- 16.7.2004  - Copy of card statement of opposite party-1.

Ex.A9- 17.7.2004  - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-1.

Ex.A10- 20.7.2004         -                  – do -

Ex.A11- 23.7.2004         - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-2.

Ex.A12- 27.7.2004         - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-2.

Ex.A13-       -       - Copy of complaint to opposite party-1.

Ex.A14- 3.8.2004  - Copy of letter from opposite party-1.

Ex.A15- 8.8.2004  - Copy of letter from opposite party-1.

Ex.A16- 13.8.2004         - copy of letter from opposite party-1.

Ex.A17- 16.8.2004 – Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-1.

Ex.A18- 16.8.2004         - Copy of card statement of opposite party-1.

Ex.A19- 6.9.2004  - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-1.

Ex.A20- 16.9.2004 – Copy of card statement of opposite party-1.

Ex.A21- 16.10.2004- Copy of card statement of opposite party-1.

Ex.A22- 27.10.2004- Copy of card statement of opposite party-1

Ex.A23- 8.11.2004         - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-1.

Ex.A24- 19.11.2004 – Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-1

Ex.A25- 26.11.2004 – Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-1

Ex.A26- 22.12.2004 – Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-1

Ex.A27- 13.1.2005   – Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-1

Ex.A28- 7.2.2005  -  Copy of letter from opposite party-1.

Ex.A29- 8.2.2005  - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-2.

Ex.A30- 17.2.2005         - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party-2.

Ex.A31- 24.2.2005         - Copy of letter from complainant.

Ex.A32- 15.3.2005         - Copy of complaint to Banking Ombudsman.

Ex.A33- 19.5.2005         - Copy of reply notice.

Ex.A34- 13.6.2005         - Copy of reply by complainant.

Ex.A35- 23.11.2005- Copy of letter of complainant to opposite party-1.

Ex.A36- 23.11.2005 – Copy of letter of complainant.

Ex.A37- 16.3.2006           - Copy of card statement of opposite party-1. 

Ex.A38- 5.1.2006  - Copy of notice of Mr.Jayamugunthan.

Ex.A39- 17.4.2006  - Copy of reply sent by complainant.

Ex.A40        -       - Copy of returned cover.

 

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   .. Nil.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.