Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/516

S.Kumar Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Aggarwal Adv.

05 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 516 dated 06.11.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 05.08.2022.

S. Kumar, Advocate, R/o. H. No.308, Street No.2, Nirmal Nagar, Dugri, Ludhiana

IInd Address:

Chamber No.354, 3^rd Floor, Lawyer’s Chamber Complex, Part-I, District Courts Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                            ..…Complainant 

•  

1. M/s. Vodafone Idea Limited, Suman Tower, Plot No.18, Sector-II, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat-382011 through its Chairman.
2. M/s. Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Ideal Cellular Limited), Punjab Circle, Office C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali, Punjab-160055, through its Manager.
3. M/s. Idea Cellular Limited, SCO-14, Green Park Enclave, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana through its Manager.
4. Anjali Sharma, Advocate, Legal Advisor of respondent No.1 to 3, Sector 43, District Courts, Chandigarh.                                                                                                                                             …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,      1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, Advocate.

For OP1 to OP3             :         Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate.

For OP4                         :         Complaint against OP4 not admitted vide order                                           dated 21.11.2019.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was a consumer of the OPs and has been using mobile telephone connection No.98146-84118 which was originally purchased from Spice Telecom  which later on merged into Idea Cellular Limited. The complainant had deposited a security amount of Rs.1000/- with OP1 and OP2.

2.                It is further alleged that about 2/3 years ago, the complainant got his plan changed and subscribed to a plan of Rs.125/- per month. On 04.09.2019, the complainant received a message from the OPs that an amount of Rs.1532.28 was due towards the complainant which included a rental charges of Rs.1299/-. After receiving the message, the complainant visited the office of OP3 on 05.09.2019 and complained about the receipt of exaggerated monthly bill. He was told by OP3 that the monthly plan of the complainant was changed on 31.07.2019. In fact, the complainant never applied for or asked the OPs for the change of the plan of Rs.1299/- per month. The complainant further requested the OPs to revert the plan and requested for the same was made by way of a message sent to No.59465. OP3 assured that the previous bill would be waived of as the same has been mistakenly issued.

3.                It is further alleged that on 23.09.2019, the complainant again approached OP3 but he was forced to deposit the bill sent on 04.09.2019. The complainant immediately deposited Rs.1600/- against the bill of Rs.1532.28 but no receipt was issued. The monthly plan of the complainant was also not changed. As a result, the complainant requested OP3 to return the security amount of Rs.1000/- as he wanted to port his mobile to some other mobile operator. However, OP3 refused to refund the security amount of Rs.1000/-. The complainant ported his number from the OPs to Airtel after clearing all his dues. In this regard, the complainant received a message also from Airtel on 28.09.2019. Even after porting of the mobile, the OPs illegally sent a demand of Rs.2369/- to the complainant on 03.10.2019. On 29.10.2019, the complainant further received a call from OP4 the legal advisor of OPs who used unparliamentarily language against the complainant. Thereafter, on 31.10.2019, the OPs sent another message demanding Rs.1369/- from the complainant. On 01.11.2019, the complainant visited the office of OP1 to OP3 and requested to issue receipt of Rs.1600/- deposited on 23.09.2019. The complainant further demanded statement of account for the period from August 2019 onwards but the same was not supplied. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. In the end, it has been requested that the ops be directed not to harass the complainant by demanding Rs.1369/- and be made to refund the security of Rs.1000/- deposited by the complainant. It has further been requested that OP4 be made to apologize to the complainant and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- be also awarded along with litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

4.                The complaint as against OP4 was not admitted vide order dated 21.11.2019.

5.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP1 to OP3. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OP1 to OP3, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is false and frivolous. Moreover, the complainant has ceased to be a consumer of the OPs as he has got his number ported to Airtel on 26.09.2019. According to the OPs, primarily the complainant had subscribed to a tariff plan PSP 137.5-20K R Corp-NGN2102 which had a monthly rental of Rs.137.50. The OPs have further pleaded that the complainant himself requested for a change of plan on his number through web portal on 31.07.2019. Accordingly, the OPs sent a SMS and an email to the complainant intimating about the change of plan to Nirvana 1299 as per his own request. This fact has been concealed by the complainant while filing the complaint. The plan on the mobile number of the complainant was changed from Nirvana 1299 to eTalk_125_700Mins as per his request from 05.09.2019 onwards. It has been admitted that subsequently the complainant has ported his number to Airtel. It has, however, been denied that the complainant had cleared all the dues before porting. According to the OPs, the complainant deposited Rs.1600/- on 23.09.2019 to discharge the bill dated 01.09.2019 for the period from 01.08.2019 to 31.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.1532.82. The complainant further discharged his liability only for the bill cycle ending on 31.08.2019. Thereafter, the complainant requested for porting out his number on 23.09.2019 and used the services of the OPs till 26.09.2019 but he did not make any payment for the period from 01.09.2019 to 26.09.2019 which is evident from the bill dated 01.10.2019. As the complainant did not clear the arrears of bill dated 01.10.2019, the OPs raised a non-payment disconnection request to Bharti Airtel as per Regulation Number 14(5) of the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009. The OPs have admitted the message was sent to the complainant on 31.10.2019 requesting him to pay Rs.1369/- as the security deposit of Rs.1000/- was adjusted. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of OP1 to OP3. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

6.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit EX. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C16 and closed the evidence.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP1 to OP3 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Manoj Madan, Authorized Signatory along with documents Annexure-OP1 to Annexure-OP12 and closed the evidence.

8.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have also gone through records.

9.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that he had subscribed monthly plan of Rs.125/- per month, but on 04.09.2019 he received a message/bill asking him to deposit Rs.1532.28 in which the monthly rent was mentioned as Rs.1299/-. When the complainant confronted the OPs about the exaggerated bill he was told that his plan was changed on 31.07.2019 but the complainant claims that he never applied for the change of the plan from a monthly rent of Rs.125/- plan to a plan of Rs.1299/- per month. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that as per the bill Annexure-OP1 for January 2019 monthly charges of Rs.137.50 and not Rs.125/- per month as claimed by the complainant.

10.              It has rightly been pointed out by the counsel for the OPs that the plan was changed on the request of the complainant himself from monthly rental plan of Rs.137.50 per month to Rs.1299/- per month, known as Multiple International Roaming plan. In this regard, the counsel for the OPs has referred to Annexure-OP3 wherein the plan is shown to have been changed as per the request of the complainant. It is clearly mentioned in Annexure-OP3 that on the request of the complainant, the plan has been changed to Nirvana 1299 via C2-42346572 w.e.f. 31.07.2019. The counsel for the OPs has further referred to email Annexure-OP3 sent to the complainant regarding change of the plan. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant never got the plan changed or that he never opted for a plan with monthly rent of Rs.1299/- per month. It is further evident from record that after change of the plan on 31.07.2019, the bill Annexure-OP8 for the period from 01.08.2019 to 31.08.2019 for a sum of Rs.1532.28 was issued. The complainant is said to have ported his Sim card number to Airtel in the last week of September 2019. According to the OPs, the complainant deposited Rs.1600/- on 23.09.2019 and the said amount was paid against the bill of Rs.1532/- for the period from 01.08.2019 to 31.08.2019. However, while porting his mobile w.e.f. 28.09.2019 the complainant was bound to pay the charges to the OPs from 01.09.2019 onwards till his mobile was ported. Accordingly, bill Annexure-OP5 for the period from 01.09.2019 to 30.09.2019 was issued and the itemized call detail attached with the said bill shows that the complainant has been using its number right up to 27.09.2019. Accordingly, the bill of Rs.2368.83 was rightly issued. Subsequently, the revised bill Annexure-OP6 was issued as the security amount of Rs.1000/- was deducted reducing the outstanding plan to Rs.1368.83. In this regard, no case of deficiency of service is made out on the part of the OPs. Rather the boot is on the other leg and the complainant is liable to pay the bill of Rs.1368.83.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

S. Kumar Vs M/s. Vodafone Idea Limited                      CC/19/516 

Present:       Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate for OP1 to OP3.

                   Complaint against OP4 not admitted vide order dated 21.11.2019.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.