By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.75,000/- towards the loss suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency of service of Opposite parties, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and to pay the cost of the proceedings.
2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant is a subscriber of Mobile Phone connection with Sim No.9048821842 with Opposite parties. The said phone is used by the complainant and her daughter in law. On 15.01.2015 at 4.36 PM, the Complainant called to the customer care centre of the Opposite Parties and requested to activate offer for reducing the call charges to Malaysia. It was told that there is a balance of Rs.70/- in the account of the Complainant and 19 rupees wil be deducted from the balance of the Complainant's account and the plan will be activated within one hour and the Complainant can make call after one hour under the scheme. It was further told from the customer care centre that under the scheme the call charges will be reduced from Rs.10/- per minute to Rs.3.6 per minute. Thereafter, at about 8' O clock night the Complainant made a call to phone number 601128686134 of her son at Malaysia. But within 7 minutes, the entire balance amount in the account was extinguished and the phone was disconnected. When informed this to Opposite Parties, there was no response from the Opposite parties. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of Opposite parties, the Oppoite Parties contended that the Complaint is not maintainable before the Forum as it is hit by the provision of Indian Telegraph Act. The Opposite Parties denied all the material allegation in the complaint. The Opposite Parties admitted that the Complainant is a subscriber of Opposite parties. As per the records of Opposite parties, no details are available to show that the Complainant called the customer care centre on 15.01.2015 at 4.36 PM. The Complainant had not subscribed the alleged specified charge of Rs.19/- and no such amounts were deducted from his account for activiting the same as alleged. If an offer is activated, there will be SMS message from the Opposite Parties to the mobile of Complainant. Here, the Complainant had no case that she received any such message. So it shows that no such offer is activated. The Complainant had not subscribed the offer of Rs.19/- for getting the said benefits. Hence the normal call charges to Malaysia is Rs.10/- per minute which is applicable to the Complainant. On complaint of Complainant, the Opposite Parties registered a complaint as 504627850. On verification, the said offer was not subscribed by the Complainant. Hence, the complaint is closed. There is no deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties?
2. Relief and costs.
5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 and A2. The Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and is examied as OPW1. Ext.A1 is the authorisation letter, Ext.A2 is the summory of charges for the bill issued by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant. The case of Complainant is that the complaint on 15.01.2015 at 4.36 PM called to the customer care centre of the Opposite Party and requested to activate offer for reducing the call charges to Malaysia. Believing the words of Opposite party, the complainant made a call to Malaysia but within 7 minutes, the entire balance amout in the account was extingushed and the phone was disconnected. The Opposite Party stated that no such offer was found subscribed by the Complainant and the Complainant not entitled to get the offer benefits. The Opposite party registered a complaint and made enquiry and found that no such offer was subscribed. On verification, the Forum found that the Complainant not produced any documents or phone details to prove that the Complainant contacted the customer care centre of Opposite party and requested for offer. The Opposite party denied the allegation of the Complainant. More over, the complainant deposed in cross examination that no message received in her mobile confirming activation of offer. According to Opposite Party, if an offer is activated, defenitly there will be message information in the mobile of offer subscriber. It shows that no such offer is subscribed by the Complainant. The Forum found that the Complainant not produced any document to prove that the Complainant sustained loss due to the deficiency of service of Opposite Parties. It is up to the Complainant to prove her case. But here, the Complainant failed to prove her case with cogent and convincing evidence. Hence the forum found no deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of August 2016.
Date of Filing:03.03.2015.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Jincy Joseph. Teacher.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Rajesh. Head, Legal, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.,
Ernakulam.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Authorisation dt:24.06.2016.
A2. Summary of charges for the bill.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
Nil.
