BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No. 168 of 2014

Date of Instt. 15.5.2014

Date of Decision :13.11.2014

Surjit Singh aged about 49 years son of Bishan Singh R/o 263, Khurla Kingra, Backside Punjab Sweet Shop, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Vadafone Essar South Limited, C-131, Industrial Phase-8, Mohali through its Authorized person.

2. Vadafone Store, Opposite Commissioner's Office, Near Tehsil Complex, Jalandhar through its Manager/Authorized person.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Umesh Ohri Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.KK Arora Adv., counsel for OP No.1

Opposite party No.2 exparte.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant obtained corporate mobile connection from the opposite parties bearing No.9888306612 and the same is in operation since long on a monthly rental of Rs.100/-, which includes free calling of 500 minutes and 500 free local SMS. The complainant purchased one smart phone in the month of March, 2013 and the opposite parties offered free internet facility for two months, which the complainant accepted. Complainant is regularly paying the bill of the abovesaid connection and there is no amount due regarding the abovesaid connection against the complainant earlier. Thereafter, the complainant was surprised to receive huge bill and on enquiry the complainant came to know that on expiry of internet connection offered free for two months the opposite parties converted the same into costlier internet plan and due to this huge bill was sent to the complainant. The complainant approached the office of opposite parties and requested the official concerned that on the expiry of the internet plan offered free the opposite parties neither deactivated the services nor seek option/consent from the complainant whether the complainant intends to continue with the facility or not and starting charging the highest rates, whereas the economical plan were available, resulting into huge bill amount and moreover, due to non payment of the bill the service of the mobile connection of the complainant has been deactivated too. The complainant thereafter, approached opposite party No.2 in this regard, but the matter was not resolved, resulting in disconnection of the mobile connection, referred to above after 3.7.2013. But the complainant was surprised that after disconnection of the said mobile connection the opposite parties are imposing monthly charges for the incoming calls and ignored the services in which the complainant has been provided with corporate connection on monthly rental of Rs.100/-, which includes free calling of 500 minutes and 500 free local SMS. Thereafter on 24.8.2013 the opposite parties offered one time settlement proposal to the complainant and the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.4000/- as full and final payment with a condition that the complainant has to choose mobile internet connection at a monthly charges of Rs.198/- for unlimited usage of internet, to which the complainant agreed and deposited Rs.4000/- with the opposite parties and the mobile connection was activated and it was also told to the complainant that unlimited internet usage plan has also been activated. Thereafter, the complainant was shocked to receive a bill for the month of September, 2013 in which the internet again charged at the highest rate of internet usage despite activation of the unlimited internet plan. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and enquired the matter and he was told by the official concerned of opposite party No.2 that no unlimited plan was activated on 24.08.2013. The complainant apprised the official of opposite party No.2 that on 24.8.2013 when one time settlement was offered on the part of opposite parties a condition was put before the complainant to activate unlimited net pack of Rs.198/- and complainant accepted the same and deposited the amount of Rs.4000/- qua one time settlement proposal. Thereafter, the mobile connection was again deactivated on 23.11.2013. The complainant was made to run from pillar to post and several correspondences were made by the complainant requesting the opposite parties to waive off excessive bill and ultimately, the opposite parties accepted their mistake only when the complainant sent the recorded conversation of one time settlement and activation of unlimited internet plan. But the complainant was again shocked when received the bills for the months of November and December, 2013 as the services of the mobile connection of the complainant were suspended and the connection was deactivated due to non payment of bill, the opposite parties have raised bills for the said months, which is unjust on the part of opposite parties. In the month of January, 2014 the complainant was informed through emails that an amount of Rs.498/- is still outstanding against the complainant for the period November, December, 2013 and January 2014, the details of which is mentioned as under:-

Month Amount

Nov-13 Rs.245.6

Dec-2013 Rs.195.59

Jan-14 Rs.57.61

Total Rs.498.80

2. The complainant again approached opposite parties and requested them to waive off the bill amount, referred to above, as during the said period the service of the mobile connection of the complainant was suspended/deactivated and the complainant is having corporate connection, in which the complainant was provided with 500 free calls and 500 local SMS, but the opposite parties did not adhere to the request of the complainant. Moreover, it is important to add here that the mobile connection of the complainant is having dynamic credit limit of Rs.6300/- and the opposite parties have disconnected the mobile connection of the complainant for a meager amount, which too is less than Rs.500/-. The complainant because of the illegal acts and conduct of the opposite parties suffered great mental loss and also mentally harassed because of illegal act of charging excess bills from the complainant and for illegal acts and conduct the opposite parties are liable towards the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the compensation from the opposite parties for illegal act and conduct on their part. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to resume the services of mobile connection and to waive bill amount of Rs.498.80/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

3. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, maintainability in view of section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act etc. It further pleaded that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has not mention any cause of action to file the present complaint. The answering opposite party in good gesture gave the waiver to the complainant even for fault of the complainant. The answering opposite party waived off Rs.2338.98/- for GPRS usage on 17.12.2013, on 25.12.2014 Rs.275/- credited as per National Credit Policy and Rs.32.61/- credited into customer account on 24.1.2014 for non usage. The system generated account statement of customer mobile number is annexed. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has to pay the outstanding bill of Rs.441.19/- to the answering opposite party. The amount of other bills has already been waived off by the answering opposite party. So the answering opposite party has nothing to pay to the complainant on account of compensation. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is using the smart phone in which he has to switch off the data connection, the internet connection was not to be deactivated by the answering opposite party. The outgoing on the mobile connection bearing No.9888306612 was deactivated due to non payment of the bill. The incoming of the mobile connection was activated and which was used by the complainant. The complainant has to pay the monthly rental charges of the mobile connection which is used by the complainant. The mobile connection was deactivated due to the own fault of the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.4000/- as settled between the parties. The mobile connection bearing No.9888306612 was activated after making the payment of Rs.4000/- as agreed between the parties. The complainant also want to activate the internet connection at the monthly charges of Rs.198/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant wants to activate the internet connection on his mobile connection bearing No.9888306612 @ 199/- which was not activated due to some system error. It is further pertinent to mention here that the answering opposite party has already given the waiver on 25.12.2013, which is reflected in bill dated 1.1.2014. The internet connection was activated on 18.9.2014. The answering opposite party gave the waiver of the amount charged for the usage of the internet facility during the period in which the internet facility was not activated due to some system error. The complainant was informed through emails for the outstanding amount of Rs.498.80/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the answering opposite party credited Rs.275/- in the account complainant as per the national credit policy in the month of December. It is also pertinent to mention here that the answering opposite party gave the waiver of Rs.57.61/- on the basis of non usage of the bill for the month of January. It denied other material averments of the complaint.

4. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

5. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered in to evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with copies of documents Ex. C1 to C8 and closed evidence.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 and OP2 and closed evidence.

7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party No.1.

8. The mobile connection of the complainant is lying disconnected or deactivated at present. In para 7 of the written reply, the opposite party No.1 has stated that mobile connection bearing No.9888306612 was activated after making the payment of Rs.4000/- as agreed between the parties and complainant also want to activate the internet connection at the monthly charges of Rs.198/-(or Rs.199/-). So as per settlement between the parties, the complainant paid Rs.4000/- to the opposite parties. In para 8 of the written reply, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that complainant wants to activate the internet connection on his mobile connection bearing No.9888306612 @ 199/- which was not activated due to some system error. The fact that the connection was not activated due to some system error, itself prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In para 9 of the written reply, the opposite party No.1 has again pleaded that it gave the waiver of the amount charged for the usage of the internet facility during the period in which the internet facility was not activated due to some system error. So charging the amount for internet facility during the period in which it was not activated also constitute deficiency in service. According to opposite party, the mobile connection was deactivated due to non payment of bill. In para 10 of the written reply, the opposite party No.1 has pleaded that outstanding amount is Rs.498.80/-.

9. In view of above circumstances, the complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to activate the mobile connection of the complainant on payment of Rs.498.80/- by him. However, the complainant is also awarded Rs.4000/- in lump sum as compensation and litigation expenses on account of deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties as discussed above. The outstanding amount of Rs.498.80/- may be adjusted from this amount. Compliance be made within 15 days. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

13.11.2014 Member President