This is a complaint made by one Smt. Pratima Das and another Sri Goutam Das against Smt. Suchismita Paul, Store Manager, Vodafone Services and Vodafone East Ltd., praying for a direction upon the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the loss suffered by the Complainant No. 2 in his business and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for the mental trauma suffered by the them and further sum of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.

In short, case of the Complainants’, is that, on 31-07-2015, Complainant No. 2 received a service call from one of the Customer Care Executives of Vodafone Services, who persuaded him to migrate from 2G services to 3G services.  Allegedly, during the first week of September, 2015, an SMS was sent by the OP No. 2 for payment of a bill of Rs. 5,000/- which was unusual and extremely high.  So, both the Complainants visited the store of the OP No. 1 and lodged a complaint about such unusual billing.  On his request, the OP No. 1 asked the Complainant No. 2 to pay Rs. 3,000/- in full and final settlement of said bill.  The OP No. 1 further advised the Complainants to enjoy unlimited 3G net plan for Rs. 650/-, to which the Complainants agreed.  They were informed at that time that the said plan would activate w.e.f. 27-09-2015.  However, to their utter surprise, Complainant No. 1 received an SMS for payment of Rs. 7,000/-.  So, the Complainant No. 2 immediately rushed to the office of the OP No. 1 to enquire about it.  The OP No. 1 allegedly informed that Complainant No. 1 through an email, followed by another letter, expressed her desire to withdraw the said unlimited internet facility and revert to limited facility.  Caught by surprise, Complainant No. 2 asked the OP No. 1 to show the purported email and letter, but the OP no. 1 sought one month time to do so.  Subsequently, OP No. 2 asked for payment of Rs. 10,959/-.  It is the further allegation of the Complainants that from the first week of November, 2015, the service became one way and later on, from December, 2015, the OPs disconnected the service connection without giving any prior notice.  It is also alleged that although the Complainants sought for the hard copy of the bill, that has also not been provided by the OPs.  Hence, this case.

OP No. 2 contested the case by filing WV, whereby it denied all the material allegations of the complaint.  Apart from questioning the jurisdiction of this Forum to adjudicate the present dispute, it is stated by this OP that 3G internet pack was activated with the consent of the Complainant and billing was done based on her actual usage.  It is further stated that the amount of Rs. 3,000/- was paid by the Complainants as part payment of their outstanding dues.  As a result, rest of the said billing amount was carried forwarded with the billing cycle and the same has been shown in the invoice dated 27-09-2015.  It is the case of the OP No. 2 that 3GB data net plan amounting to Rs. 650/- was activated on 27-08-2015 and said plan had a validity of one month.  It is denied by this OP that they offer any unlimited data service facility against any particular plan.  As regards the allegation of abrupt disconnection of service connection, this OP squarely blamed the Complainants for not clearing outstanding dues in time.  Denying any laches on its part, this OP prayed for dismissal of this case.

Point for consideration is whether the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed for by them.

Decision with reasons

Complainant No. 2 filed Affidavit-in-Chief against which, OP No. 2 put some questionnaire and in turn, Complainant No. 2 filed reply under affidavit.  It, however, appears from the record that although the OP No. 2 filed Affidavit-in-Chief in support of its WV, it refrained from answering to the questionnaire submitted from the side of the Complainant. 

On closer scrutiny of the questionnaire put forth from the side of the Complainant, it appears that the Complainant flagged off some extremely vital issues, clarity in respect of which were extremely critical in order to evaluate the conduct of OPs vis-à-vis allegations raised against it by the Complainants.  It is indeed surprising that the OP No. 2 shied away from coming clean on the matters.  It is always desirable that parties to a judicial proceeding come with clean hands and make every endeavour to assist the Court of Law impart due justice in an effective manner.  Bypassing an issue by a party only gives rise to suspicion about the sincerity of purpose of the concerned party.        

Be that as it may, on going through the materials on record, it appears that while the OP No. 2 has effectively dealt with some issues raised by the Complainants, it skirted some uncomfortable issues as well for obvious reasons.

First, it is admitted by the OP No. 2 in its WV that “3GB data 3G Net Plan” amounting to Rs. 650/- was activated to the concerned phone on 27-08-2015.  However, from the photocopy of bill for the period 27-08-2015 to 26-09-2015, it appears that the phone was under “Talk Delight 250 Rate Plan” at the relevant point of time and charges were also levied according to the Talk Delight 250 Rate Plan.  No clarification is assigned from the side of the OP No. 2 in this regard for the reasons best known to it.

It is pertinent to mention in this regard that under the 3GB data 3G Net Plan, a customer was entitled to download 3GB data against the fixed charge of Rs. 650/-.  Most surprisingly, although the Complainants used, as it appears from the photocopy of bill on record, only 704 MB data in between the period from 27-08-2015 to 26-09-2015,  that was well within the prescribed limit of 3,000 MB, Complainants were billed an amount of Rs. 1,157/- on this account. 

Similarly, although the OP No. 2 has squarely blamed the Complainants for disconnection of the mobile connection over non-payment of dues, it has not placed on record any tangible proof to show that prior notice has ever been served upon the Complainants before taking such harsh measures.  No one is above the law.  When Rule 7 of the “Quality of Service (Code of Practice for Metering and Billing Accuracy) Regulations, 2006” stipulates that, “Where the service provider unilaterally intends to restrict or cease service to the customer, a notice shall be provided to the customer in advance of such action so that the customer has reasonable time to take preventive action to avoid restriction or cessation of service” , it was obligatory on the part of the OP No. 2 to follow suit.   Most unfortunately, OP No.2 honoured such Regulations in its breaches.  Let us not forget that the Complainants did not stop payments of bills without any rhyme or reasons.  They had some issues with the OPs.  In fact, as we find, even trifle matters being raised by the Complainants were not taken care of by the OPs, e.g., copies of bills, as sought for by the Complainants, were not provided to the Complainants despite repeated demands. Since OPs did not live up to their expectations, it appears, Complainants made payments of bills irregularly.  Against this backdrop, we feel, OPs could have shown some patients to bear with the Complainants.  Taking undue advantage of its official position, causing inconvenience to a customer cannot be the be all and end all of any service provider.

Another issue raised by the Complainant is that signature of the Complainant No. 1 was fabricated to deactivate MI 3G 650 plan in respect of her mobile connection.  Even a bare eye view of the signature of the Complainant No. 1 as it appears on the service request form purportedly signed on 10-09-2015 vis-à-vis petition of complaint, would leave no one in doubt that there is no parity in between the two signatures.  Significantly, OP No. 2 has not made any comment in respect of this issue.  Besides, one wonders, in case 3GB data 3G Net Plan unveiled by the OP No. 2 was indeed valid for only 30 days, why one would require to discharge such service request form to deactivate the said service. 

All these facts point out gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Therefore, taking into consideration the plight of the Complainants, thanks to the unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs in their dealings with a helpless customer, we deem it fit and proper to award a reasonable compensation and litigation cost in favour of the Complainants.  However, insofar as the business loss as perceived by the Complainants is not proved in any manner, in our considered opinion, Complainants are not entitled to any relief on this score.  Further, given the fact that Complainants have not sought for correction of the erroneous bill for the period from 27-08-2015 to 26-09-2015 or passing necessary order for restoration of the disconnected service connection, we afraid, no relief can be granted on these score too.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/87/2016 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP No. 2 and ex parte against the OP No. 1.  OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the Complainants within two months hence, i.d., the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from this day till full and final payment is made.