DATE OF FILING                    :     26-11-2014

DATE OF S/R                            :      05-02-2015

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     28-01-2016

Motilal Jhalani

flat No. 302, 3^rd Floor,

Radha Krishna Apartment,

near Hans Khali Pul,

opp. Amar Jyoti Apartment,

Bakultolla, Howrah 711109………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.

• Versus   -

1.         M/S. Vodafone Mini Store

            Thikana Apartment,

            Nityanand Nagar,

            Near Hans Khali Pul,

Bakultolla, Howrah 711109

2.         M/E. Vodafone East Ltd.,

            08, Major Arterial Road,

            New Town, Rajarhat,

            Block-AF, D.L.F. IT Park,

Kolkata 700156..……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

P    R    E     S    E    N     T

Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.

F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. Complainant, Motilal Jhalani,  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to revise the call rates and to repay the amount after adjustment, to pay an amount of   compensation, out of which 50% to be deposited to Consumer Education Welfare Fund along  with other relief or reliefs as the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant, a senior citizen, took a Vodafone mobile connection having No. 9836931945 on payment of Rs.220. It is alleged that at the time of talking such connection, he was informed that local calls and STD calls would be charged as 40paise/min and 35paise/min respectively. But when he made STD calls, he could know from the service message sent by O.Ps. that they are charging much more than 35paise/min. So, he visited the mini Vodafone store, herein o.p1, with his complaint on 28.08.2014 at about 4:20pm and met one customer care executive of O.P.1. But that executive could not provide him any solution of this problem. Thereafter the complainant picked up some printed papers for getting the customer care nos and email address of O.P.s and asked the name of that executive. And surprisingly, that executive started shouting at him with all abusive language along with all threatening words like i) “Till I am in the stores you will never get service from me. I will also make such serious complaint against you that you will never get any service from Vodafone”,ii) “What authority you have to ask my name. You cannot ask my name and note down on the paper” ,iii) “You are illiterate man and you do not know you have done a great offence by asking and noting my name ” etc that made the complainant feeling insulted. However, by that time he could see the name plate of that executive having tagged with his shirt displaying his name as “Mr. Soumen”. From that day, itself, the complainant started complaining against the said Mr. Soumen by sending a no. of emails vide Xerox copies of emails dt. 28.08.2014 to 30.10.2014 stating the details of his problem. During this period O.P. also refunded Rs.1.62 and credited the same in the account  of his mobile no. vide email  no 13. O,p assured in that very e-mail that they already registered the complaint of the complainant against that executive. But as the complainant did not receive any positive request with respect to his complaint, he filed this instant petition with the aforesaid prayer.

3. Notices were served upon O.Ps. They appeared and filed any written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.

4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

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

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5. We have carefully gone through  the complaint petition, W/V, evidence and reported judgments filed by both parties and noted their contents.   O.P. 2, the Head office of o.p1, also filed one non-maintainability petition stating that any dispute between the customer and O.Ps. should be adjudicated as per Section 7B   of Indian Telegraph Act and not by this Forum. But here the dispute is not relating to any billing dispute but with respect to the behavioral dispute. So, this instant complaint is very much maintainable. O.P.2 should have remembered that the success of their business depends upon the consumer satisfaction. The service they are providing to the customer, for that they are charging a particular tariff which the customers are paying in time. If they do not get their payment, they  simply disconnect the service connection. And here in this case, O.P.s even took an excess payment for the STD call made by the complainant to the no. 09307979109 and for that O.P. also reimbursed Rs.1.62 which proves beyond any doubt that  they made a mistake in charging STD call of the complainant more than 35paisa/min. But here complainant has not annexed any document to establish that on payment of Rs.220 for a particular type of  service connection, the STD rate would be only 35paisa/min. So, we cannot pass any order with respect to the first prayer of the complaint as to the direction to revise his call rates. But with respect to the misbehavior of an agent, being the customer care executive of O.P, we are to deal with the issue with all humanity. O.P.s should have remembered that the customer care executive are the face of the company. They are to remember that customers are the King. It is not at all a luxury on the part of a customer to pursue such a complaint for days together if there is no valid reason. O.ps should have trained their customer care executives to be patient and polite towards the customers . On the contrary, it is our common experience that the business houses, like o.ps ,always think that the customers are to bear with all their misbehavior. In our country like, India, we always pay regard and respect to our seniors. Here in this case, complainant is a man of 70. O.P.s should have taken a specific and positive step to redress the grievance of the complainant beyond giving some assurance, as if the customers are always subjected to the mercy of the service provider which should not be allowed to be perpetuated  and definitely  it  is deficiency in providing service to the bonfide customer.    We all know that for any act of the agent, the principal is liable. Our Hon’ble Apex Court has also categorically opined in the judgment of Lucknow Development Authority Gupta case that the behavior of the men and agents of o.ps. is to be considered at the time of ascertaining  the quantum of compensation.  And the men and agents of o.ps are  off  and on found to  misbehave with their subscribers. So, we are of candid  opinion that it is a fit case  where the prayer of compensation should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.   

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  of 608 ( HDF  of 608 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      That the  O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 10,000  as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from this order i.d the entire amount shall carry 8% interest till actual payment.

       That they are further  directed to pay  Rs. 10,000 to the  S.C.W.F held  by Deptt. of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of West Bengal within one month from this order i.d it shall carry  an interest  @ 8% till actual deposit.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.            

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    Jhumki Saha)                                              

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.