Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/401/2016

Dr.S.V.Ramanujam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, M/s. Vodafone ESSAR South Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.T.Chaari

30 Oct 2019

ORDER

                                                                           Date of filing      : 14.12.2016

                                                                             Date of Disposal : 30.10.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.401/2016

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

                                 

Dr. S.V. Ramanujam,

S/o. Late. Sampath,

No.46, 1^st Main Road,

F1-Sri Ranga Complex,

Nanganallur,

Chennai – 600 061.                                                        .. Complainant.   

 

                                                                                                  ..Versus..

 

1. The Managing Director / CEO,

M/s. Vodafone ESSAR South Ltd.,

Tower I, 9^th Floor, T.V.H. Bellcia Tower,

Block 94, MRC Nagar,

Chennai – 600 028.

 

2. Vodafone ESSAR South Ltd.,

1^st Main Road,

Nanganallur,

Chennai – 600 061.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : Mr. R.T. Chaari

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. V.V. Giridhar & another

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to refund a sum of Rs.5,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is a Senior citizen working as a Co-ordinating Member of Sri Brahmatantra Swatantara Parakalaswamy Mutt and he is a customer of the 2^nd opposite party Vodafone ESSAR South Limited.   The complainant enrolled himself with Hutch and made a refundable deposit of Rs.5,000/-.   When the 1^st opposite party Vodafone took over Hutch all the deposits and transactions of the members of the Hutch were automatically taken over by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant was using Vodafone No.9884289444 and was regularly settling the bills.  The complainant took another Sim card from the 2^nd opposite party bearing No.9962598444 for his wife and was regularly settling the amount.   When the complainant for his official and personal engagements left to United States on 22.06.2015 he surrendered the two numbers and kept in deposit of the 2^nd opposite party for safe custody till return from United States of America.  The complainant states that both the Sim cards were deactivated by the 2^nd opposite party during his absence as per his request. The complainant states that there was no dues to the opposite parties in relation with the two Sim cards.   Immediately, after returning from United States of America on 17.11.2015, the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party on 18.11.2015 and requested to activate both the Sim cards.  But the 2^nd opposite party gave connection only on 19.11.2015 at 03.00 p.m. with a delay of one day.    The complainant met the officer of the 2^nd opposite party in person and surrendered the Vodafone No.9962598444 and paid Rs.20/- for the period from 19.11.2015 to 21.11.2015.  

2.     The complainant submits that the 2^nd opposite party called the complainant over phone and informed that a sum of Rs.11,640.21 was due and the complainant is requested to pay the said amount immediately without mentioning the phone number etc.   Immediately, the complainant met the Officers of the 2^nd opposite party in person and verified his accounts and confirmed that there was no dues.   The complainant submits that on 23.11.2015, at 01.25 p.m. he received a SMS from the 2^nd opposite party.   Likewise on 26.11.2015 also, the complainant received a SMS and during that period the complainant was in United States of America and deposited the two Sim cards to the 2^nd opposite party for safe custody.  After deactivation, there was no arrears on the part of the complainant to the opposite party.  The claim of the opposite parties through SMS and telephone calls caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complainant issued notice dated:09.12.2015 to the 1^st opposite party.   But the opposite parties has not come forward to settle the claim of the complainant.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that there is no element of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   The opposite parties state that the deposit related to telecom service should be dealt with the appropriate Courts and this Court is having no jurisdiction as per the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the complainant shall prove the refundable deposit of Rs.5,000/-. The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that they are not disputing the averments made by the complainant with regard to the availing of two mobile connections 9884289444 and 9962598444 and deposit of the above 2 mobile sim cards with the opposite parties and request for the restoration of the above two connections on 18.11.2015 and restoration of the above two connections on 19.11.2015 and surrendering of the mobile number 9962598444.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that at no point of time, this opposite parties claimed a sum of Rs.11,640.21 towards mobile charges and no SMS was sent by the opposite parties for claiming arrears.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the allegation of deactivation of mobile No.9884289444 is false.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 are marked.     Proof affidavit of the opposite parties is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite parties. 

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get return of a sum of Rs.5,000/- deposited with interest as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.   Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he is a Senior citizen working as a Co-ordinating Member of Sri Brahmatantra Swatantara Parakalaswamy Mutt as per Ex.A1, copy of order dated:07.08.2002 and he is a customer of the 2^nd opposite party Vodafone ESSAR South Limited.   The complainant enrolled himself with Hutch and made a refundable deposit of Rs.5,000/- as per Ex.A2 to Ex.A4.   When the 1^st opposite party Vodafone took over Hutch all the deposits and transactions of the members of the Hutch were automatically taken over by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant was using Vodafone No.9884289444 and was regularly settled the bills.   The complainant took another Sim card from the 2^nd opposite party bearing No.9962598444 for his wife and was regularly settling  the amount as per Ex.A5, copy of receipt.   When the complainant for his official and personal engagements left to United States on 22.06.2015 as per Ex.A6, Visa Copy, he surrendered the two numbers and kept in deposit of the 2^nd opposite party for safe custody till return from United States of America.  Further the contention of the complainant is that both the Sim cards were deactivated by the 2^nd opposite party during his absence as per his request.  

7.     Further the complainant contended that there was no dues to the opposite parties in relation with the two Sim cards.   Immediately, after returning from United States of America on 17.11.2015 as per Ex.A7 the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party on 18.11.2015 and requested to activate both the Sim cards.  But the 2^nd opposite party gave connection only on 19.11.2015 at 03.00 p.m. with a delay of one day.    The complainant met the officer of the 2^nd opposite party in person and surrendered the Vodafone No.9962598444 and paid Rs.20/- for the period from 19.11.2015 to 21.11.2015.  Further the contention of the complainant is that  the 2^nd opposite party called the complainant over phone and informed that a sum of Rs.11,640.21 was due and the complainant is requested to pay the said amount immediately without mentioning the phone number etc.   The opposite party also failed to submit the statement of accounts.   Immediately, the complainant met the Officers of the 2^nd opposite party in person and verified his accounts and confirmed that there was no dues.  

8.     Further the contention of the complainant is that on 23.11.2015, at 01.25 p.m. he received SMS from the 2^nd opposite party as per Ex.A8 (S).   Likewise on 26.11.2015 also, the complainant received a SMS and during that period the complainant was in United States of America and deposited the two Sim cards to the 2^nd opposite party for safe custody.  After deactivation, there was no arrears on the part of the complainant to the opposite party.  The claim of the opposite parties through SMS and telephone calls caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to issue notice dated:09.12.2015 as per Ex.A9 to the 1^st opposite party.   Since there was no reply, the complainant was constrained to filed this case.  Because, the opposite parties deactivated the No.9884289444 caused inconvenience proves the deficiency in service.   The opposite party has not filed any documents but admitted that there was no arrears.   But has not disputed the claim made by the opposite parties.  Hence, the complainant claiming for refund of the deposit amount of Rs.5,000/- with compensation.

9.     The contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that there is no element of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  But it is not denied that the opposite parties deactivated the Sim card connection No.9884289444.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the deposit related to telecom service should be dealt with the appropriate Courts and this Forum having no jurisdiction as per the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.  But in the case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the Consumer Forum having jurisdiction.  Further the contention of the opposite parties the complainant shall prove the refundable deposit of Rs.5,000/-. As per Ex.A2 to Ex.A4, it is apparently clear that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- which is refundable.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that at no point of time, this opposite parties claimed a sum of Rs.11,640.21 towards mobile charges.  Equally, no SMS was sent by the opposite parties for claiming arrears.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A8(S), it is very clear that the opposite parties unnecessarily claimed amount proves the deficiency in service.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the allegation of deactivation of mobile No.9884289444 is false and is not acceptable.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally shall refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- received by way of deposit with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) being the amount received by way of deposit and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of October 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	07.08.2002	Copy of the complainants appointment as a co-ordinating member by the Parakalamswamy Mutt dated:07.08.2002
Ex.A2	05.12.2003	Copy of bill No.0000029498122003 dated:05.12.2003 of Hutch confirming the deposit amount of Rs.5,000/-
Ex.A3	05.12.2003	Copy of bill No.0000029498122003 dated:05.12.2003 of Hutch confirming the deposit amount of Rs.5,000/-
Ex.A4	05.05.2004	Copy of bill No.0000029442052004 dated:05.05.2004 of Hutch confirming the deposit amount of Rs.5,000/-
Ex.A5(S)	20.06.2015	Copy of receipts issued by the opposite parties for Rs.672/- and for Rs.2,033/-
Ex.A6	22.06.2015	Copy of the complainant’s visit to USA, visa photocopy
Ex.A7	17.11.2015	Copy of the complainant’s return to India, visa photocopy
Ex.A8	26.11.2015	Copy of text message received from the 2nd opposite party dated:26.11.2015, 04.12.2015 & 05.12.2015
Ex.A9	09.12.2015	Copy of letter sent to the 1st opposite party with acknowledgment
Ex.A10	20.01.2016	Copy of legal notice sent to the 1st opposite party with acknowledgement

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT