DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

 Dated this the 16^th  day of November, 2024

Filed on: 07/05/2019

PRESENT

Shri. D.B. Binu                                                                                 Hon’ble President

Shri. V. Ramachandran                                                                Hon’ble Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N                                                                      Hon’ble Member

C.C. NO. 186 of 2019

Complainant:

Abraham K. George S/o K.C. George aged 63 years 7B, Platinum Tower, Palachodu, Kakkanad, Ernakulam-682030

Vs

Opposite Parties:

1. The Circle Head, Vodafone Idea Ltd., VJ Towers, Service Road, Vytilla, Ernakulam 682015.
2. The Manager, Vodafone Idea Ltd., VJ Towers, Service Road, Vytilla, Ernakulam 682015.

FINAL ORDER

D.B. Binu, President

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant, a businessman, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, a post-paid mobile customer with Vodafone (previously Orange in Mumbai), has maintained service loyalty since 2010 despite offers from competitors. On September 13, 2018, he requested Vodafone’s customer service to activate international roaming on his mobile and deactivate internet data while roaming, agreeing to a roaming charge under ₹150. However, he was later billed ₹21,306.48. Upon receiving this bill, he promptly emailed Vodafone on September 15, 2018, requesting a reversal of the excess charges.

To his surprise, Vodafone deactivated his roaming, leaving him unable to use essential services abroad. He contacted Vodafone repeatedly on September 16, 20, 22, and 24, seeking restoration of his roaming and reversal of charges. Instead, Vodafone requested payment of 80% of the unbilled amount to reactivate his services. Despite ongoing communication, Vodafone failed to resolve the matter or deactivate data as initially requested, leading to further charges and emotional distress.

On November 15, 2018, the complainant, through legal notice, requested Vodafone to settle the excess charges and reinstate his services. Vodafone did not respond, prompting a second notice on March 12, 2019, which also went unanswered. As of now, his unpaid balance stands at ₹26,834, and he continues to be billed for monthly rentals despite disconnection.

Reliefs Sought

The complainant seeks (a) waiver of excess charges, (b) restoration of mobile service, (c) ₹3,00,000 compensation for mental distress, (d) ₹1,00,000 compensation for delay in resolution, and (e) coverage of legal costs, due to Vodafone’s negligence and failure to resolve the issue promptly.

2. NOTICE:

The commission sent notices to the opposite party on 07/06/2019. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties did not file their version and were set ex-parte on 18/11/2020 and 03.11.2022 respectively.  

3. Evidence:

The complainant did not file a proof affidavit but submitted 12 documents :

1. 15-09-2018 - Email sent by the complainant
2. 16-09-2018 - Email sent by the complainant
3. 20-09-2018 - Email sent by the complainant
4. 22-09-2018 - Email sent by the complainant
5. 22-09-2018 - Email sent by the complainant
6. 24-09-2018 - Email sent by the complainant
7. 01-10-2018 - Email sent by the complainant
8. 20-10-2018 - Email sent by the complainant
9. 22-10-2018 - Email sent by the complainant
10. 15-11-2018 - Lawyer's Notice sent by the complainant
11. 28-12-2018 - Email sent by the complainant
12. 12-03-2019 - Lawyer's Notice sent by the complainant

4. Points for Consideration:

i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties?

iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

iv) Costs of the proceedings, if any?

5. The issues mentioned above are considered together and answered as follows:

The complainant failed to submit a proof affidavit. Despite being given multiple opportunities, the complainant consistently neglected to present any evidence. After January 18, 2020, the complainant ceased to appear before the Commission and did not provide the necessary evidence, demonstrating a pattern of non-attendance from the outset of the case. Consequently, on November 3, 2022, the Commission instructed the registry to notify the complainant to appear. The registry contacted the complainant by email on June 29, 2024, informing them of the required appearance and the subsequent steps. However, the complainant’s continued absence and failure to provide any evidence left the Commission with no choice but to proceed with resolving the complaint based on the available evidence. Despite numerous opportunities to comply, the complainant has neither submitted the required evidence nor appeared before the Commission, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the case.

The core of the complaint revolves around the alleged deficiency in service by the opposite parties. Under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish the deficiency in service. This principle has been upheld in various judgments, including the case of SGS India Ltd. vs. Dolphin International Ltd. [(2021) AIR SC 4849], where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that "the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant." In the absence of sufficient evidence, mere allegations cannot be the basis for holding the opposite parties liable. In this case, the complainant has failed to substantiate his allegations with concrete evidence.

Deficiency in Service and Negligence:

The term "deficiency," as defined by the Consumer Protection Act, refers to any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, or manner of performance required to be maintained by or under any law, or as claimed by the person performing the service. In the present case, the complainant has not been able to prove that the service provided by the opposite parties was deficient according to statutory or contractual obligations.

In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no relief is granted to the complainant.

We have decided not in favour of the complainant on all the issues mentioned above. After careful consideration, we find that the case presented by the complainant is without merit. As a result, the following orders have been issued:

ORDER:

Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 16^th  day of November, 2024.

              Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

                  Forwarded/By Order

                    Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Evidence

NIL

Opposite Parties’ Evidence

NIL

Date of Despatch

By Hand        ::

By post          ::

AKR/

Order in  CC No. 186/2019

Date:16/11/2024