DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 09/12/2020
CC/161/2020
Ranjith.V
S/o Vijayakumar
Residing at Devi Kripa, Ethanur
Palakkad – 678 502 - Complainant
(By Adv. M/s M.J.Vince & M.P.Ravi)
V/s
1. Ravinder Takkar, M.D., CEO
Vodafone India Pvt. Ltd.
Birla Centurion, 10th Floor
Plot No: 794, B Wing
Pandurang Budhkar Marg
Worli Mumbai – 400 030
2. Officer in charge
Vodafone Idea Ltd.
1st Floor VJ Tower
NH Bypass, Vytilla (P.O)
Cochin – 682 019 - Opposite parties
(By Adv. P.Muralidharan)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant availed three mobile connections of the opposite parties jointly; one for him and others for his father and mother with numbers 8943337779, 9746640677 and 8943331789. He took these connections seeing the opposite party’s advertisements and offers. It was told that it is a post paid connection and for each connection, detailed bills will be provided and he would get trouble free connection.
The complainant received a bill for an amount of Rs. 1,069.66 for the period 22/05/2020 to 21/06/2020 which he paid and the subsequent bill of Rs. 1,068.83 for the period from 22/06/2020 to 21/07/2020 was also paid by him. For the period from 22/07/2020 to 21/08/2020, he got another bill in which Rs. 200/- was charged from international SMS send from number 9746640677 which was used by his mother. The complainant, his father or mother has not used this facility. He paid the bill and enquired about the same at the time of payment; but the officials were reluctant to give details. Subsequently another bill was issued for the period from 22/08/2020 to 21/09/2020 which showed 328 international SMS made from number 9746640677 and charged Rs. 1,640/- for the same. The complainant paid Rs. 3,270.53/- but they disconnected the connection.
Even after payment, the opposite parties did not reinstate the connections and were reluctant to give detailed bills or the numbers to which SMS were sent.
The conduct of the opposite parties in charging exorbitant bills for the services which was not availed and abstaining from giving detailed bills even after request amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties
- To pay a sum of Rs. 66,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
- To provide the details of the bill and to pay compensation for delay in reinstating the connection.
- To pay the entire cost of the proceedings and to grant such other incidental reliefs.
2. Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. 1st and 2nd opposite parties appeared and vakalath was filed on behalf of them. But they did not file version and was set ex-parte. Later they filed RA 1/21 to review the order and it was allowed and version was taken on file.
3. Opposite parties in their version admitted that complainant availed 3 post paid connections from them with numbers 8943337779, 9746640677 and 8943331789. As per the statement of accounts of each connection, it is seen that the connections were taken in the name of the complainant himself and all the 3 bills were generated in his name. They denied the other allegations. After paying the amount of Rs. 3,270.53/-, all three connections were activated because till 25/08/2020, the bills for all 3 connections were generated as a single bill and when dues were cleared, the connections got activated. From 26/08/2020, the bills for all 3 connections got generated separately as per request made by the complainant for changing the add-on connections to individual connections. At the time of filing this, the connection for number 89433337779 was active and other two connections were suspended temporarily due to non-payment of outstanding amount. Once it is cleared, the connections will be activated.
Further the disputes in relation to billing and the like can be raised before an Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism. Without resorting to the same, filing of this complaint is misconceived and it has to be dismissed on that ground. They denied the allegation made by the complainant regarding non-issuance of detailed bill even after repeated requests. No such request was made by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration
- Whether international SMS were sent from phone no: 9746640677 during the period covering from 22/07/2020 to 21/08/2020 and 22/08/2020 to 21/09/2020.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
- Reliefs as cost and compensation.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked from his side. Marking of Exts. A1 and A2 were objected to on the ground that they are photocopies without any seal or signature. The objection is not sustainable as there is no case that the documents are forged or fabricated. Opposite party did not file proof affidavit. Evidence closed. Both parties filed notes of argument.
6. Point No: 1
Complaint averment is to the effect that the complainant availed 3 post paid connections jointly from the opposite party company with numbers 8943337779, 9746640677 and 8943331789 and the complainant, his father and mother were using these numbers.
He received a bill for the period 22/05/2020 to 21/06/2020 for an amount of Rs. 1,069.66/-, and a bill of Rs. 1,069.83/- for the period from 22/06/2020 to 21/07/2020. Both the bills were paid by him. But, when he received the bill for 22/07/2020 to 21/08/2020, it was stated that 40 international SMS were made from the number 9746640677 used by his mother for which Rs. 200/- was charged. Even though he raised query regarding the same, the opposite parties did not provide detailed bill. Subsequently in the bill issued for the period 22/08/2020 to 21/09/2020, for 328 international SMS they charged Rs. 1,640/-
7. Complainant produced the bills which are marked as Exts. A1 (Series). First bill for the period from 22/05/2020 to 21/06/2020 shows an amount of Rs.1,069.83/- Second is the bill for the period 22/06/2020 to 21/07/2020 showing the amount of Rs. 1,069.83/- For the period 22/07/2020 to 21/08/2020 another bill is produced showing an amount of Rs. 1,426/- in this bill SMS charge is shown as Rs. 200/-
The bill for the period from 22/08/2020 to 21/09/2020 shows bill charge as Rs. 2,618/- In this SMS charge is Rs. 1,640/- Next bill is for the period 22/09/2020 to 21/10/2020 including the previous bill which the complainant has not paid is 2,618.41 + 652.12 = 3,270.53/- In this SMS charge is Rs. 0/-
8. In all these bills, the Vodafone number is shown as 8943337779 and is in the name of the complainant. Number of connections is shown as three, which means single bill is provided for three connections.
In the two bills where SMS is charged shows “SMS charges” and not international SMS.
9. During cross examination the complainant deposed that എല്ലാ connection ഉം കൂടി ഒരു ബില്ലാണ് തരാറുള്ളത് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല് ശരിയല്ല. Add on connection ആയിരുന്നു എന്നോട് ചോദിക്കാതെ മാറ്റിയതാണ്. 22/06/2020 മുതൽ രണ്ടു ബില്ല് ആയിട്ടാണ് തരുന്നത്. പ്രത്യേകമായി തൽകിയ ബില്ലുകൾ കോടതി മുന്നാകെ ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല. 9746640677, 8943331789. ഈ നമ്പറുകളെക്കുറിച്ചാണ് പരാതി. ഈ നമ്പറിലെ ബില്ലുകൾ ഹാജറാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. (Page No: 2 of deposition of PW1). He further stated (Page No: 3) ഞാൻ എടുത്ത connection കളിൽ international call കളും SMS കളും അയക്കാനുള്ള സൌകര്യം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നോ എന്ന് ചോദിച്ചാൽ ഇല്ല.
10. The opposite parties in their version had not given any explanation relating to the SMS charges. Their only contention is that the bill was same for all the connections. After 25/08/2020, the bills were separate for the three connections as per the request of the complainant. Since he did not make payments for two connections, they were disconnected.
The opposite parties did not file proof affidavit or mark any documents from their side. They did not give any explanation for the complainant’s allegation of charging for international SMS which they did not use and the connection is not having that facility.
11. Complainant’s contention is that even after repeated requests opposite parties were not ready to give details bills or the number to which the SMS were sent. Opposite parties failed to give any explanation regarding the charges for SMS in their version and they did not file proof affidavit.
So from the documents produced, it appears that no international SMS were sent from these numbers.
12. Points 2 to 4
The opposite parties had not given any explanation regarding SMS charges or adduce any evidence to show that details bills were given to the complainant. The opposite parties could have produced the detailed bills with the numbers to which international SMS were sent, before this Commission. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in charging for a service which the complainant did not avail. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for that. No personal liability is cast on the 1st opposite party and liability is on the ‘Vodafone’ to compensate the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed.
We direct the opposite parties
- To refund the amount the complainant has paid towards SMS charges amounting to Rs. 1,840/- with 10% interest from 09/12/2020 (the date of complaint) till realization.
- We also direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service on their part and for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order
Pronounced in open court on this the 31st day of May, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext. A1: Series of Vodafone Bills.
Ext. A2: Series of payment receipts against the Vodafone Bills.
Ext. A3: Lawyer notice and acknowledgement slips.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined from the complainant’s side:
PW1: Ranjith.V – Complainant.
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil
Cost- Rs. 5,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
