BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.13 of 2015

Date of Instt. 13.01.2015

Date of Decision :28.04.2015

Chander Bhushan Aggarwal, Director, Nanda & Company Trading Pvt Ltd, Cannaught Circle, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Vadafone South Ltd, (Circle Head Office) C-131, Industrial Area, Phase VIII, Mohali, Punjab through its authorized representative/regional manager.

2. M/s Vodafone Store, V-Mart Building, Near Jyoti Chowk, Jalandhar through its Authorized Representative/Senior Manager.

3. Mr.Kanik, Senior Official/employee, M/s Vodafone Store, V-Mart Building, Near Jyoti Chowk, Jalandahr.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.KK Gupta Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.KK Arora Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is well reputed person and active director of M/s Nanda & Company Trading Pvt Ltd, Cannaught Circle, Jalandhar and he is personally using the cell connection bearing No.9988172000. The above said cell connection was registered with Airtel previously and due to weak signal strength and network problem the complainant by using portability facility transferred his connection from Airtel to Vodafone i.e opposite party No.1. The complainant is regularly paying all the bills to the opposite parties on time. The outgoing calls of the above said cell connection were barred by the opposite party No.1, when the matter was inquired by the complainant from the office of the opposite party No.2, then opposite party No.3 who is the senior official/employee of the opposite party No.2 attended the complainant and informed him that the service of outgoing call was barred on the request of Airtel (previous service provider) because the said connection was previously registered with Airtel and a payment of Rs.1170/- was due, after that opposite party No.3 requested to the complainant to clear the above said dues of Airtel. As per information provided by the opposite party No.3, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1170/- on 9.1.2015 to the Airtel. A copy of receipt of payment issued by Airtel was handed over to the opposite parties No.2 and 3, to start the service of outgoing calls of the said cell connection. On this, the opposite party No.3 in the premises of opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that he will start the service within 30 minutes. As per assurances given by the opposite party No.3 the service of outgoing calls was not restored by the opposite parties and after 4 hours the complainant again visited the office of opposite party No.2 and complained the matter, then again senior manager and opposite party No.3 assured the complainant that they will start the service within 30 minutes. On 10.1.2015, it was the next day, the complainant again visited the office of the opposite party No.2 because the service of outgoing calls was not restored by opposite party No.2 The opposite party No.3 was present in the office of opposite party No.2, when the complainant complained the matter then the opposite party No.3 illegally demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- from the complainant to start the service. The complainant refused to pay any amount, then the employee/official (opposite party No.3) of the opposite party No.2 flatly refused to start the service of the complainant and start misbehaving with the complainant. In this regard an email was also sent to the opposite party No.1 but till now no action has been taken by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 against the opposite party No.3 and even the service of outgoing call is barred till time. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to start the service of outgoing calls immediately. he has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has after porting out from Bharti Airtel, had taken the mobile connection of the Vodafone South Ltd. The said mobile connection bearing No.9988172000 got ported in the system of the answering opposite party on 19.11.2014. It is pertinent to mention that the mobile outgoing services of the complainant was barred due to the reason of non payment of bills amounting to Rs.1168.39/- which was pending at the end of the donor operator i.e Bharti Airtel Pvt Ltd. It is again reiterated that it is only due to the non payment of the outstanding dues for an amount of Rs.1168.39/- the services of the complainant remained barred. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. It is not disputed that the complainant was earlier having mobile connection with Airtel company and by way of portability he ported his number from Airtel to opposite party No.1 telecom company. The grievance of the complainant is that his outgoing calls were barred without giving any intimation to him. According to the opposite parties, outgoing calls were barred due to non payment of bill amounting to Rs.1168.39/- which was pending at the end donor operator i.e Bharti Airtel. The outgoing calls were restored by the opposite parties as per interim order dated 20.1.2015 passed by this Forum. The complainant has deposited the outstanding amount with Bharti Airtel vide receipt Ex.C3 on 9.1.2015. The complainant has also placed on record copy of email dated 11.1.2015 Ex.C4 regarding restoration of his connection. The present complaint was filed on 12.1.2015 when the opposite party failed to restore the outgoing calls. In email Ex.C4 there is also mention of sending the latest payment receipt of Bharti Airtel. So inspite of intimating the opposite party telecom company regarding the payment of outstanding amount to the Airtel the outgoing calls of the complainant were not restored. It constitute deficiency in service on part of the opposite party telecom company. Moreover, disconnecting or barring outgoing calls of the mobile connection of the complainant without giving any prior notice to him also constitute deficiency in service. The outgoing calls of the complainant were started only on 2.2.2015 during pendency of the present complaint. The counsel for the opposite party contended that delay was due to system update. It hardly constitute any valid justification for restoring the outgoing calls of the complainant belatedly inspite of the fact that he has intimated the opposite party regarding deposit of outstanding amount with Airtel company. Moreover, as already observed above, the barring outgoing calls of the mobile connection of the complainant without giving prior intimation to him also constitute deficiency in service. So complainant is entitled to compensation.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- in lump sum to the complainant on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Compliance be made within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

28.04.2015 Member Member President