IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 29th day of September, 2016
Filed on 26.12.2013
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.393/2013
Between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Jaya Binu 1. The Manager, Vodafone
W/o Binu, Sreekrishna Kripa Cellular Ltd., 4th Floor
Kattoor P.O., Kalavoor Angel Arcade, South Kalamasserry
Alappuzha Cochin University P.O.
(By Adv. P. Roy) Kochi – 22
(By Adv. P. Satheesan)
2. The Proprietor, Connections
Vodafone Mini Store, Near MSM
College, Kayamkulam
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant is working as the administrator of Abacus Academy, Alappuzha. A large number of students from various standards are studying in the said institution. In relation with the administration of the said institution the complainant has taken mobile connection from the 2nd opposite party which is a franchisee of the first opposite party. The husband of the complainant is working as an executive in the 2nd opposite party’s shop. The said connection was availed by the complainant under the 149 per sec plan and the number allotted to her was 8086100100. The above said number was activated w.e.f. 30.9.2012. The complainant was using the above number for her office purpose. In the meantime a detailed bill dated 22.1-.2-12 was also issued to the complainant for an amount of Rs.122.78/-. The said bill was paid by her on 7.11.2012 at the franchisee of the first opposite party at Alappuzha. On 7.11.2012 the complainant received a call from mobile phone number ‘9846107359’ and informed that the number allotted to her is going to be deactivated. On the same day a message was received by her husband regarding the deactivated. Thereafter, the said number was deactivated from 8.11.2012. The deactivation of the number allotted to the complainant caused inexplicable hardships and loss to her. The above act on the part of the first opposite party constituted unfair trade practice and also gross deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is filed for directing the first opposite party to re-allot the mobile number 8086100100 to the complainant and also compensation for an amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest and also Rs.50,000/- for loss suffered by the complainant.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is with the full knowledge of complainant’s
husband the mobile No.8086100100, which is in the series of numbers exclusively allied to police department, taking advantage of an inadvertent technical error or pursuant to manipulation by complainant’s husband himself complainant managed to get the subject matter unique number, which under no circumstances could have been allotted to an outsider to police department. The said number was allotted to the complainant on the inadvertent technical error or on a manipulation by the complainant’s husband himself who was working in a Vodafone Connection Activation Point at the relevant time. For maintaining utmost confidentiality and secrecy in the matters of police department in the unique sequence including the above number aligned to the police department. Due to the system error when the said number was wrongly displayed among the cluster of numbers to general public, taking advantage of the situation with full knowledge of the above error, complainant’s husband ingeniously secured the said number in the name of his wife, the complainant herein. The complainant had been duly informed of deactivation on finding the technical error in the matter. After deactivating the number, the first opposite party had given it to a higher Police Officer as his personal number. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
3. Notice issued to the 2nd opposite party was served but they did not turn up. Hence the 2nd opposite party is set ex-parte.
4. The complainant’s husband was examined as PW1. Documents produced through him marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Marking of Exts.A4 and A6 were opposed by the opposite party. No oral evidence adduced from the side of the first opposite party. The documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2.
5. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so the reliefs and costs?
6. Point No.1:- One of the contentions raised by the opposite party is that the dispute between the subscriber and telegraph authority could only be reserved through arbitration proceedings. But Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and provides that provisions of the acts shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and hence the complaint is maintainable.
7. Points 2 & 3:- According to the complainant in relation with the administration of the Abacus Academy, she had taken a mobile connection from the 2nd opposite party which is a franchisee of the first opposite party and the number allotted to her was 8086100100 and it was activated from 30.9.2012. But on 7.11.2012 complainant received a call informing that the number allotted to her is going to be deactivated and the said number was deactivated from 8.11.2012. According to the complainant, the deactivation of the said number caused much hardships and loss. The first opposite party filed version stating that the said number was allotted to the complainant on a inadvertent technical error or on a manipulation by the complainant’s husband who was working in a Vodafone activation point at the relevant time. The first opposite party also stated that with the full knowledge of the complainant’s husband, the mobile phone number 8086100100 which is in the series of numbers exclusively allied to the police department and taking advantage of an inadvertent technical error, the complainant managed to get the subject matter unique number which under no circumstances could have been allotted to an outsider to the police department. So the first point to be considered is whether the first opposite party any right to deactivate the mobile number 8086100100. It is an admitted fact that complainant’s husband is working in the 2nd opposite party’s company. While cross examining the complainant’s husband, he admitted that, “Complainant- …........................................…................................................................................. .” He also admitted that he had selected the number from the 2nd opposite party’s office. The main contention of the opposite party is that with the full knowledge of the complainant’s husband the mobile number 8086100100 which is in the series of numbers exclusively allied to police department taking advantage of an inadvertent technical error, complainant managed to get the said number. While cross examining the complainant’s husband, he also admitted that the said number is in use of the Ajithkumar IPS. In the re-examination even though he stated a number like 8943100100 is in the use of one Mr. Binoy a business man he had not produced any evidence for the same. Ext.B2 is the letter issued from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order Traffic, Kochi City to the Deputy General Manager. Vodafone Cellular Ltd. which shows that the mobile number 8086100100 of Vodafone, Kerala was under the possession and usage of Police, Central Police Station, Kochi City as its “Onam Security Control Room Mobile Number.” It also shows that the said number was re-activated for police department for implementing “CRIME HOTSPOT MAPPING.” The said number is using now by the IPS Officer. More over it is also an admitted fact that the complainant had been informed of the deactivation on 7.11.2012. The complainant has no case that it was deactivated without informing her. Since the complainant’s husband working in the 2nd opposite party’s office, there is every chance for selecting this fancy number for his wife. He also admitted that the application form was filled by him and in case of post paid connection, the number stated in the customer application form was activating in the blank sim. So we are of constrained view that number was selected by the complainant’s husband and he himself has activated the number which is reserved for the use of the police department.
8. According to the complainant, the deactivation of the number caused much mental agony, loss and hardships to her. According to her, she was an administrator of Abacus Academy and the said mobile connection was taken for the official purpose of the complainant and the number was published in many advertisements and also in many big notices. She also stated that due to the deactivation of the number, she could not get many of the enquiries from the interested students in the Abacus Academy. In order to substantiate this allegation, she produced a copy of the notice which marked as Ext.A5. While cross examining the complainant’s husband he admitted that the owner of the Abacus Academy is one Smt. Kavitha. If the Abacus Academy has sustained any loss due to the deactivation of the number it should be stated by the owner and not by the complainant. It is pertinent to notice that the oral evidence was given by the complainant’s husband. No authorization filed by the complainant deputing her husband for giving evidence on behalf of her was produced. Complainant was not examined to prove the special damage alleged in the complaint. The award of compensation has to be made on well recognized legal principles governing the quantification of damages or compensation. The extent of injury suffered and the manner in which the extent of which monitory loss has been caused thereby to the complainant has to be proved. In the instant case there is absolutely no material to prove the extent of loss or injury caused to the complainant due to the deactivation of the mobile No. 8086100100. From the forgoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in deactivating the mobile No. of the complainant and also there was no loss sustained to the complainant by the said deactivation.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me an pronounced
in open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Binu.N.R. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the legal notice dated 3.12.2012
Ext.A2 - Reply notice dated 4.2.2013
Ext.A3 - Copy of the bill
Ext.A4 - Copy of the receipt (Subject to objection)
Ext.A5 - Notice of Abacus Academy
Ext.A6 - Postpaid Customer application form (Subject to objection)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Customer agreement form
Ext.B2 - Letter from Deputy Commissioner of Police
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
