DATE OF FILING : 29.01.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 20.03.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 24.11.2015.
Sri Kiran Das,
son of Sri Susanta Das,
residing at village Anandanagar, P.O. Sapuipara,
P.S. Nischinda, District Howrah,
PIN 711227. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. The Manager,
Vodafone Care, 5P, M.G. Road, P.O. & P.S. Howrah,
Howrah – 711101.
2. The Manager,
Vodafone East Limited,
registered office Constantia Office Complex II,
Dr. U.N. Brahmachari Street,
Kolkata 700 017.…………..………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Kiran Das, praying for a direction upon the o.ps., Manager, Vodafone Ltd., and Manager, Vodafone Care, to restore the mobile connection of the petitioner in its earlier prepaid connection and declared that the bills sent by the o.ps. for the postpaid are illegal one and compensation for Rs. 1 lakh.
- The case of the petitioner is that he is a bonafide consumer of telephone service with mobile no. 9830478004 and his connection was a prepaid one under 280 Plan with 400 minutes free calls facility and he continued the same. On 06.09.2013 at about 10.30 p.m. he found that his connection has been changed from prepaid to postpaid one by the o.p. no. 1 without his consent and inflated bills started coming to him being Rs. 1,667/- in place of Rs. 1,389/- and so on and the o.ps. proceeded to him to pay the amount. He issued one advocate’s letter on 29.09.2013 requesting the o.p. to rechange his connection from post paid to prepaid but in vain. Again on 30.09.2013 the o.p. sent one SMS to the petitioner showing the bill amount of Rs. 1,980.57 and his credit limit was illegally enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- from the earlier limit of Rs. 600/- and on 26.10.2013 the o.ps. illegally disconnected his connection and so the activities of the o.p. amounts to great injustice for which the petitioner is entitled to compensation and so he filed this case.
- The o.p. contested the case by filing a written version by denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the case is not maintainable and also the petitioner has no cause of action to file the case. As per Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act the Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case and the TRAI Act is the special legislation established w.e.f. 20.02.1997 for the purpose of regulating telecom services. The letter of Department of Telecommunication dated 04.02.2014 regarding jurisdiction of the District Forum is of no use as under Article 141 of the Constitution only the laws laid down by the Supreme Court and the Parliament are binding of all courts and the circular of DOT does not have leg to stand against the judgment of Supreme Court. Our National Forum also ordered in the tune of the Supreme Court of India. Further the petitioner applied for changing his connection from prepaid to postpaid and so now filing this case is no use and only to harass the o.ps. and the case be dismissed.
4. Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to try the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner filed affidavit and documents showing that he was a prepaid customer of Vodafone and also his documents proved the fact that he paid some bills as prepaid customer but the documents filed by the o.ps. clearly shows and proves that the petitioner, Kiran Das, on 04.09.2013 applied for changing his prepaid service to postpaid service and the o.ps. also filed documents showing that on 04.09.2013 he signed fresh documents to change his prepaid connection to postpaid one. Thus, his claim that the Vodafone illegally disconnected his prepaid line and changed the same to a postpaid one is not true.
- As regards maintainability of the petition this Forum finds that the Supreme Court judgment in respect of 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 is not applicable here because the same was against the Department of Telecommunication but this o.p. being a private service provider, this Consumer Forum can entertain such dispute between the petitioner and the o.p. and also the case is well maintainable in law now.
- Regarding cause of action, this Forum finds that the connection of the petitioner was disconnected without notice and thus he has a good cause to file this case. But while coming to the illegal and arbitrary change from prepaid connection to postpaid connection this Forum finds no truth behind the affidavit and documents filed by the petitioner as his signed documents proved the fact that he applied for change of the connection from prepaid to a postpaid one. Thus the case is well maintainable in law and also the disconnection made illegal without any notice and so such disconnection is illegal and the petitioner is entitled to prepaid connection as he prays for such connection now. However, he has to pay the previous bills as the bills were drawn as per his form wherein he applied for change the connection from prepaid to postpaid one. The bills would be prepared by the o.ps. only for the period such postpaid connection was there i.e., till 26.10.2013. This Forum also heard the ld. counsel of both sides and also on scrutiny of the cases of the parties and documents finds that the petitioner is entitled to a fresh prepaid connection on payment of the unpaid bills as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. who changed such prepaid bill to a postpaid one on the basis of the application of the petitioner.
In view of above discussion and findings the petitioner though able to prove his case partially but failed in respect of changing of correction from prepaid to postpaid and also he is not entitled to any compensation as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.
In the result, the claim case succeeds partially as the case is maintainable and the petitioner being a consumer is entitled to prepaid service as prayed for but the case fails as regards his prayer for direction for reconnection of his telephone because such disconnection was made due to nonpayment of bill which cannot be said illegal.
In the result, the claim succeeds in part and court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 47 of 2014 ( HDF 47 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed in part on contest without costs against the O.Ps., who are directed to issue a fresh prepaid connection in favour of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of payment of due bills by the petitioner as would calculated by the o.ps. within a fortnight.
The petitioner not making the payment of the bills within 15 days from the date of receipt of such bill the order against o.p. for rendering such prepaid connection in favour of petitioner would stand vacated and the petitioner paying bill and the o.ps. not rendering fresh prepaid connection then the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
