Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/290

Mangat Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone Assar South Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

16 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

            C. C.  No. :                 290 of 2019

Date of Institution:      13.12.2019

Date of Decision :       16.10.2024

 

Mangat Arora Advocate aged 54 years, son of Tehal Singh, resident of Opposite Jain School, Near Baba Farid, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Vodafone Idea Ltd.,(Erstwhile IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED) having its registered office at Suman Tower, Plot No. 18, Sector 11, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat-382011 through its Managing Director.
2. Vodafone Office, Old Bus Stand, Talwandi Chowk, Faridkot, through its Incharge.

                                            ....Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Rakesh Kumar Singla, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh. Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh. Vishal Gupta,  Ld Counsel for OPs.

(Rakesh Kumar Singla, President)

ORDER

                                 Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to refund Rs. 8000/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses.

 

cc-290 of 2019

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that OPs launched a scheme for advocates and as per scheme, complainant was to pay Rs.135/-per month and there was free unlimited calling on the Vodafone to Vodafone mobile connections of same plan. On being assured by OPs, complainant got two connections bearing no.78371-15156 and 98883-34467 in said scheme. It is submitted that in 2017, Reliance JIO launched its network that was very cheap in running and complainant took one new connection no.70095-22234 and thus, usage of mobile connections of OPs became very low, but for the purpose of maintaining his old number, complainant used to pay for both the numbers under the said plan. It is further submitted that though usage of connection numbers of OPs became very low, but OPs stared charging bills for more than Rs.300/-per month for both the cell numbers and being very busy in his work, complainant could not visit OPs to know the reason for high charging. In December, 2018, complainant approached OPs and asked  about the reason for excessive charges, to which they replied that tariff plan for numbers was changed and it was enhanced. It was enhanced without any prior intimation to complainant. Complainant requested them to change the plan to lowest tariff and also requested them to refund the amount previously deducted by them from the credit card of complainant.  On this OPs felt sorry and changed the plan and immediately started charging Rs.100/-per month but did not refund the amount already debited by them. OPs charged Rs.100/-for some months, but thereafter, OPs again started charging higher rate and this time they started charging Rs.230/-each for both numbers.  This time also, neither any prior intimation in this regard was given to complainant nor his  consent was taken. Call detail received by complainant also shows that usage from said numbers is very less, but OPs have unnecessarily charged this amount from

cc-290 of 2019

complainant.  All this act of Ops has caused huge harassment and mental agony to complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. He has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  instant complaint.

3                                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 17.12.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to OPs.

 4                                               OPs filed reply taking preliminary objections that no cause of action arises against answering Ops and complaint is an abuse of process of law. It is averred that complainant has attempted to misguide the Hon’ble Forum by filing false complaint. He has created a false story as there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. It is  admitted that complainant is the subscriber of aforementioned mobile connections and he was using CORP 100 Plan_2for both the numbers and plan on these numbers remained activated till 02.11.2019 when respective plans were changed by Company as per guidelines issued by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India vide notification dated 21.03.2006. Detail of new plan was also given in the invoice issued for both the numbers for the bills from 01.12.2019 to 31.12.2019 and 01.01.2020 to 31.01.2020. Complainant was duly informed regarding change of plan through SMS also. It is further averred that complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that OPs have done all this in the light of notification issued by TRAI and complainant was duly informed regarding change of plan through bills as well as through SMS. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

cc-290 of 2019

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and document Ex C-2 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant,     ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Manoj Madan Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-12 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                                  We have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant as well as for Ops and have carefully gone through the record available on file.

8                                             From the careful perusal of record there is no doubt that complainant is the consumer of OPs. Moreover, it has been admitted by OPs in their version that complainant is subscriber for numbers in question. From the bare perusal of documents Ex OP-4 and Ex OP-10, there remains no doubt that OPs themselves changed the plan without any intimation to complainant and did not bother to take his prior consent in this regard. Further bills Ex OP-3 and Ex OP-6 to 9 clearly reveal the fact that usage of consumer is less than the bill sent by OPs, meaning thereby OPs themselves changed the tariff plan without any prior intimation. OPs admitted the facts that changed tariff plan, but they changed the same as per notification. It is observed that act of OPs amounts to unfair trade practice as initially they attracted people on the basis of wrong promises made to its customers and then, arbitrarily changed the same without any notice to obtain profit. There is deficiency in service on the part of OPs as OPs failed to fulfil their promises of charges as per plan and arbitrarily changed the plan to gain profit.

cc-290 of 2019

9                               We are fully convinced with the evidence, arguments and pleadings of Counsel for the complainant. This Commission is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops in changing the tariff plan arbitrarily without the consent of complainant. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed. Opposite parties are directed to restore the earlier agreed plan and charge bill as per the Plan taken by the complainant from OPs and adjust the amount excessively charged by OPs from complainant in future bills. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.2000/-as cost of litigation.

 10                                         Ops are directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

11                                       Complaint case could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and incomplete quorum.

12                                        Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission :

Dated: 16.10.2024

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Rakesh Kumar Singla)

                                           Member                         President