Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/228/2015

D.Barathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Customer Care, Vodafone south ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Persion

31 Oct 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed :14.05.2015

Date of Reservation      :27.09.2022

Date of Order               :31.10.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                            : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 228/2015

MONDAY, THE 31^st DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

D.Bharathi,

W/o. P.S. Subha Reddiar,

Block 14 A, Unit 101,

Belinan Hall side,

Nungampalayam,

Chennai – 600 126.                                                           …  Complainant

 

 

-Vs-

Manager – Customer Care,

Vodaphone Mobile Services Limited,

Tower 1, 9^th Floor,

T.V.H Beliciaa Towers,

Block 94, M.R.C. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                        ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant           :   Party in Person

Counsel for the Opposite Party        :   M/s. V.V. Giridhar

 

        On perusal of records and on endorsement made by the Complainant to treat the written arguments as oral arguments, and upon hearing the oral argument of the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and loss and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost along with recharge cost of Rs.21/-.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant is using the mobile number 9884213523 from the Opposite Party’s company "Vodafone" with a mobile prepaid connection. On 11.04.2015 the Complainant had received a SMS No.V.T.611113,10.13 AM from the Vodaphone stating that the Vodaphone has deducted Rs.21/- from the Complainant’s account being the recharge for 28 days 21 or dial *121*21# at 0.35 paise per minute. On 11.04.2015 at 5.30 pm he was sent a SMS that 1.4 P / 2 Sec for local Vodafone calls and 1.4 P / 2 Sec for other local mobile calls, which was not only contrary to the previous SMS but also cheating its customers. From 11.04.2015 evening onwards his calls made to mobile was charged at 0.35 paise per minute whereas Calls made to the land line was charged with full amount, whereby he was cheated for second time. As he found that he was not provided and charged under above said plan of 28 days, since on 22.04.2015 at 6.56·pm at 8939648474 for 31 seconds the call was charged at 56 paise and when he contacted the Opposite Party office and complained about the same, one Ms.Shakita Banu, informed that RC 21 is only for 5 days. Though it was informed to the said representative that as per the SMS sent to him the plan is for 28 days and valid till 09.05.2015, which fact found not taken to the Opposite Party. From the information given by the said representative it was confirmed that he was not provided with the plan from 16.04.2015 itself. The Opposite party either has taken any steps or replied to his detailed letter dated 23.04.2015 sent to them. The Opposite Party had failed to provide the agreed facility for 28 days as per the SMS sent to him and also charging at regular rate for landline calls, which was in violation of the agreed plan, thereby had committed deficiency of service.  Hence the complaint.

3.   Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief are as follows:-

      There was no element of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party much less as alleged in the complaint under reply. The Complainant had filed a vexatious, frivolous case against a reputed and one of the leading players in the Telecom industry even though there was no 'consumer dispute which warrants a summary trial. Any aspect of dealing with disputes between a subscriber and telecom service provider should be dealt with before the appropriate courts having jurisdiction over the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and not under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore this Honourable Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint under reply. Without prejudice to the above preliminary objection, it was submitted that for a specific group of prepaid mobile subscribers whenever they come up with a new offer, they send SMS to its customers to keep its customers informed about the said offer. However, each offer is tailor made to suit a segmented group of customers and the same would not be made applicable to the other group of subscribers.In the instant case the Complainant received a SMS offer of recharge for Rs.21/- and avail STD and local calls at Rs.35 paise per minute for 1 month. However, the said SMS was not intended to be sent to the complainant and it was sent to the complainant due to system error though the complainant is not entitled to get the benefits of the said offer as the said benefit is meant for the other set of prepaid subscribers group. They could not give effect to the offer as mentioned in the message sent to the complainant. The bulk SMS offer triggering process was purely system driven without any human intervention, therefore the SMS triggered to the Complainant was a rare instance of technical snag. However, such technical snag cannot be construed as deficiency of service as alleged by the Complainant. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party and the Complainant cannot take undue advantage of the wrong message sent by the opposite party. When the issue was brought to their knowledge, they immediately verified the above position and found that the complainant's mobile number will not be covered under the above message and therefore it was duly informed to the Complainant that he will continue with same tariff which he had subscribed for earlier. Therefore, the Complainant did not suffer any monetary loss as they had charged as per the existing tariff plan availed by the Complainant. The above complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable as there is no cause of action for filing the above complaint. After the Complainant had informed the customer care about the tariff and their Customer care division had explained this technical snag to the Complainant and in order to continue cordial relationship and as good gesture they offered the Complainant with free Rs. 100/- additional talk time to his mobile and same was accepted by the Complainant. Having accepted the above offer made by the Opposite party for the wrong message sent, the Complainant has got no locus standi to file the above complaint. By suppressing the above material fact, the Complainant had approached this Honourable Forum with unclean hands and therefore the above complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. The Complainant has resorted to unwarranted litigation and has filed the instant complaint with ulterior motive to arm-twist the Opposite Party for the wrongful gain of the Complainant and to cause wrongful loss and to tarnish their image and reputation. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3  were marked. The Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties, no document was marked.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

 

Point No.1:-

The contention of the Complainant was that he was using the mobile connection of the Opposite Party and during usage he had received a SMS about a Plan for 28 days at concessional rate, i.e., 35 paise per minute for mobile and landline calls for recharge of Rs.21. Accordingly, he had availed the said plan, but he was not provided with the said plan and had charged for Landline calls and excessively for mobile calls as against the plan, hence the Opposite Party had cheated and committed deficiency of service.

The Opposite Party had contended that the SMS was wrongly sent to the Complainant and the same was due to technical snag and the dispute raised was not a consumer dispute, as when the Complainant had taken the said issue it was clearly informed to the Complainant about the same and had offered additional talk time to a sum of Rs.100/-, which the complainant had accepted and had failed to reveal the said fact. The Complainant had not sustained any mental agony and hence there was no deficiency of service on their part.

On discussion made above and on perusal of the records, it is clear from Ex.A-2, the transcript of the SMS received by the Complainant, the bonus recharge offer was provided for Local and STD mobile calls and there was no mentioning found to be made with regard to Landline calls, as alleged and claimed in the Complaint. Further the Opposite Party had contended that the bulk SMS was sent to various customers, the said Plan would apply only to the needed customers and the same was wrongly sent to the Complainant, having come to know about the issue of the Complainant, they had provided an additional talk time for a sum of Rs.100/- which was not denied by the Complainant. It is clear that though the Opposite Party had sent a wrong SMS to the Complainant, the issue was resolved by the Opposite Party and the Complainant had suppressed the same in the complaint. Hence, we hold that the Complainant had not sustained any mental agony as alleged in the Complaint and had failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party had not committed deficiency of service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 &3:-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint. And hence the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 31^st of October 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1		Copy of Letter
Ex.A2		Copy of message from Vodaphone to the Mobile No.9884213523
Ex.A3		Copy of Complainants Mobile Bill

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT