Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/129/2020

Vodafone Idea Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Payal Garg - Opp.Party(s)

Rameet Bakshi Adv.

24 Nov 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	129 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	15.09.2020
Date of Order	:	24.11.2021

 

Vodafone Idea Limited, Plot No.C-105, Industrial Area, Phase 7, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab – 160055, through its Authorised Signatory.

 

…..Appellant /Opposite Party.

Versus

Payal Garg D/o Sh.Rajiv Garg, r/o H.No.1182, Universal Enclave, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh, through Sh.Rajiv Garg, r/o H.No.1182, Universal Enclave, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh (being the authorized person).  

                                                …Respondent /Complainant.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Ms. Rameet Bakshi, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondent already exparte vide order dated 09.03.2021.

 

PER  PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.07.2020, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (now District Commission), UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it partly allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.268 of 2019 against the Opposite Party, which   reads  as under :-

“12.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed to:-

[a]  To pay Rs.10,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[b] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

13.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @7% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation of Rs.7,000/-.” 

 

2.            In the complaint case before the Forum (now District Commission), the facts, in brief, are that the complainant was using a mobile connection of Airtel Company having Mobile No. 78140-65511 in her name. The Opposite Party floated an advertisement through pamphlets (Annexure C-3) that if any consumer would pay Rs.499/- p.m. in the post-paid connection then the Company would issue the insurance of their handset for 12 months, as such, she ported her connection from Airtel to Idea and started using the services of the Opposite Party since 16.09.2018. However, in March 2019, the handset of the complainant stopped functioning and father of the complainant approached the Opposite Party on 02.03.2019, where, the representative told that handset of the complainant was covered under Nirvana Plan and requested him to wait for 2-3 days and in the meantime, they would send their Technical Expert to collect the defective handset from the house of the complainant but despite repeated requests through email(s), the Opposite refused to consider the request. Hence, the complaint.

3.                The Opposite Party in their reply (before the Forum) pleaded that there was a set process of subscribing to the “Idea Phone Secure Service” and the complainant/ her brother/ her father were well aware of the fact but they never completed the said process of registration on the Idea Phone Secure (IPS) App, as such, it pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

4.                Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Forum (now District Commission), the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.

5.                Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent/complainant but despite service through email, she failed to put in appearance, as such, she was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.03.2021.

6.                We have heard Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

7.           Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party has submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside in as much as the respondent/complainant never completed the process of registering on the Idea Phone Secure (IPS) App and it is evident that before filing the complaint, the complainant/her brother/father  were well aware about this fact but the respondent/complainant filed the complaint in order to mislead the Forum. He prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

8.                After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

9.                The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order.  The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. It is the admitted fact that  the Opposite Party offered scheme that if any consumer would pay Rs.499/- p.m. in post paid connection then the Opposite Party Company would issue the insurance of their handset for 12 months. The complainant was attracted with the scheme of the Opposite Party, for which, she ported her connection from Airtel to Idea and paid Rs.499/- for the same. The only allegation levelled by the Opposite Party was that the complainant herself failed to complete the process of registering on the Idea Phone Secure App has no value, at all because the Opposite Party offered the said scheme and allured its customers/consumers to adopt the said scheme and when the consumer(s) adopted the said scheme, then it was the duty of the Opposite Party to guide its consumers/customers properly and check the same whether he/she (consumers) had properly registered with the insurance company or not. However, in the present case, the Opposite Party despite receipt of the amount of Rs.499/- from consumer(s)/respondent/complainant, failed to provide the proper services to the complainant, rather levelled the allegations that complainant herself failed to complete the process of registering on the Idea Phone Secure App. If for the sake of arguments, we believe the complainant failed to complete the process of registration then it was the duty of the Opposite Party to guide the complainant properly and helped her to complete the process of registering the same. Moreover, in the present case, the complainant never got to touch with the insurance company, because the scheme was offered by the Opposite Party and not the insurance company. As such, despite receipt of the amount of Rs.499/- from the complainant, the Opposite Party failed to provide the proper services to the Opposite Party. So, we are of the view that the Forum while passing the impugned order, rightly held in paras No.9 & 10, which read as under :-

“9.     We are of the opinion that if the Opposite Party can charge the amount in question for the purpose of alluring its customers to get them ported from any other portal to their own, it was the foremost duty of the Opposite Party only to get in touch with its consumer (Complainant herein) whether she has been properly registered with the insurance company or not.

10.      It is the contention of the Opposite Party that it is only a medium between the Insurer (New India Assurance Co. Limited), the Insured and the beneficiary/user. Evidently, the Complainant was never in touch with the Insurance Company rather the services were provided by the OP-Company only, hence we feel that despite charging the requisite amount the act of the Opposite Party for non-providing the proper services within the time limit and forcing the Complainant to approach this Forum for this unnecessary litigation proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.”

 After going through the record, we are of the view that the Forum (now District Commission) has rightly passed the impugned order.

10.              For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum (now District Commission), being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Hence, the appeal filed by the Opposite Party, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum (now District Commission) is upheld.

11.              Certified copies of order be given to the parties/their Counsel free of charge.

Pronounced.

24.11.2021                                                              Sd/-

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER