Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/540/2015

Vodafone Digilink Limited through Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri T.N.Khendelwal s/o Bhagwan Das Khandelwal - Opp.Party(s)

Yesdeep Singh

08 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 540 /2015

 

Vodafone Digilink Ltd., 5^th floor, Gaurav Tower, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur through its Manager

 

Vs.

 

Sh.T.N.Khandelwal s/o Bhagwandas Khandelwal r/o B-134 Flat No. 304 Rajendra Marg,Bapu Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 08.01.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Alok Jain counsel for the appellant

Mr.Paras Jain counsel for the respondent

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the court below dated 8.4.2015 whereby Rs.50,000/- composite compensation has been allowed to the complainant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that huge amount has been allowed as compensation without any special damages.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that amount is reasonable one and no interference is needed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.

 

The facts of the case shows that in the mid night at about 3.35 a.m. three messages has been sent by the appellant for activation of chat services which disturbed the sleep of the complainant who is heart patient and 60 years old. Further more the chat service has been started without any request of the complainant-respondent and Rs. 30/- had been added in the bill. This was a case of unfair trade practice and the court below has

3

 

rightly ordered for compensation.

 

It is not expected from the company having huge business to adopt unfair trade practice. First to disturb the customer in odd hours for activation of chat service and then suo moto to start the chat service and billing for the same. This all shows malafide on the part of the appellant and the court below has rightly ordered compensation and no interference is needed. The appeal is dismissed.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member Member President

 

 

nm