Haryana

StateCommission

A/1107/2015

VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUSNEEL KAUSHIK - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL GUPTA

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No. 1107 of 2015

                                                       Date of Institution: 23.12.2015 Date of Decision: 06.04.2016

 

Vodafone Digilink Ltd. (A company registered under the Companies Act), having its registered office at C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi and regional office at D-8 Udhyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, Peeragarhi, New Delhi through its Authorised Representative.

…..Appellant

                                      VERSUS

Suneel Kaushik son of Sh.Ram Kishan Kaushik, H.No.459, Adarsh Nagar, Near Adarsh Public School Sonepat.

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                      

For the parties:  Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                             Respondent No.1 in person

                             Respondent No.2 has been deleted vide order dated 06.04.2016.

 

O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

                   It was alleged by the complainant that he was using telephone facility provided by the Opposite Parties (O.Ps) against No.9355592000. He was not having any relative in foreign country and did not make any call, but, the Ops sent demand vide bills, mentioned in the compliant.  They were also charging Rs.199/- per month as International Subscriber Dialling           (in short ISD) charges. On 05.02.2015 he went to the office of telephone company and made complaint regarding deactivation of ISD facility. Despite that the facility was not closed and the demand was being raised. So, they be directed to deactivate the ISD facility on this telephone number and refund the amount of Rs.199/- alongwith interest @ 24 %. They be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment etc. and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.      In reply, it was alleged by Ops that the ISD service was activated as per his request. The bills were generated as per service availed by complainant. As per goodwill gesture they waived Rs.1194/- on 16.04.2015 and still Rs.550.29/- were standing against him. There was no deficiency in service on their part. Objections about maintainability of complaint and limitation etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3       After hearing both the parties, learned  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

          “To refund the amount & service charge whatsoever has been charged by the respondents from the complainant under the garb of ISD facilities and this amount is directed to be paid to the complainant alongwith interest @ 09 % per annum w.e.f. the date of activation of ISD facility till its actual realization.

          Further to deactivate the ISD facilities from the mobile number of the complainant with immediate effect and in future not to issue any bill to the complainant by charging any amount under ISD facilities. The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.Fifty thousands for indulging themselves in an unfair trade practice, for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and also to pay a sum of Rs.three thousand under the head of litigation expenses.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-O.P. No.2 has filed this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that ISD facility was activated as per request of the complainant which was confirmed on the telephone. The bill raised against ISD facility has also been waived as mentioned above. He has not requested in writing to stop ISD facility and that is why the same is still in existence. The amount of compensation is highly exorbitant whereas it should have been according to amount claimed by the complainant. In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon opinion of Hon’ble  National Commission in Classic Ceramic Industries Vs. The Principal Secretary Industries Department and Chairman, U.P. Sate Indl. Devl.Corpn. Limited and others 2012 (1) CPJ 355.

7.                As far as arguments about starting and closing ISD facility is concerned the arguments of learned counsel cannot be accepted. When they allowed ISD facility on telephonic request then why they are not closing the same despite filing this complaint.   It appears that O.Ps are following procedure which is suitable or more income oriented to them. Learned District Forum has rightly directed to stop the ISD facility.

8.                Further, there is no dispute that the amount awarded qua mental harassment is not commensuration with compensation claimed by complainant. He has requested to refund Rs.199/-, whereas learned District Forum has granted compensation qua mental harassment to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. It is very much exorbitant and is to be modified keeping in view of the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in Classic Ceramic Industries Vs. The Principal Secretary Industries Department and Chairman (supra). So, the same is reduced to Rs.15,000/- and with this modification, appeal stands disposed off.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

 

April 6th  2016

Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

N.K.