BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.170 of 2015

Date of Instt. 24.04.2015

Date of Decision : 12.01.2016

Kamaljit Chandla aged about 40 years son of Prem Nath R/o H.No.ES-613, Abadpura, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Vodafone Essar South Ltd., Regional Office Village Kot Kalan, Old Phagwara Road, Jalandhar.

2. Vodafone South Ltd., C-131, Industrial Area Phase-VIII, Mohali-160071.

.........Opposite party.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh.Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.KK Arora Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)

1. Complainant Kamaljit Chandla filed the present complaint against Vodafone Essar South Ltd etc (OPs) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs with a request to direct the OPs to activate the mobile connection and pay compensation for Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental tension alongwith litigation expenses.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a Sim No.60305357 for mobile No.99888 85085 against receipt No.JAL-5907 on 20.9.2012 and deposited amount of Rs.250/- as security amount; that initially the mobile number was running smoothly and complainant was paying the bill regularly and later on, on the persuasion of OPs, complainant changed the tariff plan but when he received the bill, he found that previous tariff plan was applied in the bill which was much more higher then the current tariff plan and thereupon complainant contacted the OPs and on discussion, the OPs reduced the bill to Rs.350/- which was paid by the complainant on 25.7.2014; that immediately thereafter OPs stopped the number of the complainant and when he contacted the OP to know the reason of disconnection then complainant was asked to deposit Rs.250/- as security amount; that though complainant had already deposited the security but he again deposited the amount of Rs.250/- as security on 25.7.2014 but the mobile number did not start and then complainant again contacted the concerned official and also the senior officials and he was told that he has to pay Rs.1100/- in order to continue his mobile number which was unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such complainant filed the present complaint with a request to direct the OP to continue his mobile number and to pay compensation and litigation expenses as act and conduct of the OPs amounts to harassment and mental agony to the complainant.

3. After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OPs and OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint on the preliminary objection that the complainant have failed to disclose the cause of action for filing the complaint which relates to deficiency in service and complaint is also not maintainable in view of case law titled as General Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and others decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; that complaint is also not maintainable as complainant have failed to make the payment of outstanding amount due to the OPs and complainant have no locus-standi to file the present complaint. On merit, it was asserted that complainant failed to pay the outstanding bills to the OPs. It was denied if the OPs generated higher bills and applied higher tariff plan to the account of the complainant. It was also denied if the bill was reduced on the persuasion of the complainant as the bills are computerized bills generated by Mohali Office and there is no reason or occasion to reduce the bill by any office of the OP and as such complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed in order to cause loss to the reputation and business of the OPs. It was asserted that complainant was asked on several occasion to clear the outstanding bills but complainant failed to clear the outstanding bills. It was asserted that mobile connection in dispute remained disconnected for the period of more than three months and the said connection was erased from the system and as such complete and necessary formalities are to be complied for taking the said connection and as such complainant was required to deposit security amount of Rs.250/- and amount of Rs.1100/- as the mobile connection of the complainant comes within premium category but complainant failed to pay the sum of Rs.1100/-. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were also denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

4. Both the parties were given sufficient opportunities to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case.

5. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith document Ex.O1 and closed evidence.

7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

8. Complainant contended that he obtained the mobile connection in dispute in the year 2012 and was paying the bill regularly. He further contended that after the change in the tariff plan, complainant was sent bill for Rs.650/- which was objected by complainant and thereafter the bill was reduced to Rs.350/- which was paid by the complainant. He further contended that thereafter, the mobile connection of the complainant was disconnected and complainant requested the OPs time and again to activate his connection but with no result and then complainant was asked to deposit Rs.250/- as security which was though objected by the complainant as he had already deposited the security amount previously but again complainant deposited security amount of Rs.250/- but even thereafter, the connection was not restored and complainant was then asked to deposit Rs.1100/- as the number comes within the category of 'golden' but it was objected by the complainant and as complainant failed to get any satisfactory reply from the OPs, therefore, complainant refused to deposit the said amount and inspite of request, mobile connection was not restored which amount to deficiency in service and it has also caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such complaint is required to be allowed and OP is required to be directed to continue the mobile connection and to pay compensation as mentioned in the complaint.

9. The learned counsel for the OPs contended that complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Protection Forum in view of section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act and in view of case law titled as General Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan in which the dispute is to be decided by the Arbitration. He also contended that the dispute between the parties is regarding payment of outstanding bills due from the complainant to the OP and as such complaint is not maintainable in the Forum and complaint is false and frivolous as the number of the complainant can not be activated without payment of bills and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed with special cost.

10. It is admitted fact between the parties that complainant purchased the mobile number in dispute from the OPs and previously the said mobile number was activate and in operation and complainant had been paying the bills regularly. It is the contention of the complainant that previously he received a bill for higher amount which was objected by him and thereafter the bill was reduced to Rs.350/- which was deposited by the complainant. Though, this fact is denied by the OPs but complainant have proved this fact by receipt Ex.C2 amounting to Rs.350/- towards bill payment. Presently, mobile number in dispute has been disconnected and the contention of the OPs is that the complainant have failed to pay the outstanding bills and due to this reason, the mobile number in question has not been activated whereas the contention of the complainant is that he was asked to deposit Rs.250/- as security which was deposited by him though he had already deposited the security amount of Rs.250/-. This fact is proved by the complainant by receipt Ex.C3 which is dated 25.7.2014 and complainant have also attached a receipt for Rs.250/- Ex.C1 dated 20.9.2012. The contention of the complainant is that the OPs have directed the complainant to deposit Rs.1100/- as the number falls within premium category which was objected by the complainant as previously he was using this number, whereas the contention of the OPs is that complainant have failed to clear the outstanding bills and that is why the mobile number in question is not being activated. This Forum does not find force in the contention of the OPs as OPs have not proved any outstanding bill on the file nor there is any pleading in the written statement that any bill is outstanding against the complainant. Otherwise, complainant is using the mobile number in dispute since 2012 and he also deposited the security amount of Rs.250/- vide receipt Ex.C1 when he originally purchased the mobile number in question in the year 2012. It is admitted case that OP directed the complainant to deposit the security amount of Rs.250/- and later on Rs.1100/- as the mobile number in question falls in premium category. Though complainant had already deposited the security amount previously but he again deposited the security amount of Rs.250/- vide receipt Ex.C3 but he refused to deposit the amount of Rs.1100/- for the mobile number in question as previously he was using this mobile number. It is admitted case that complainant purchased the mobile number in question in 2012 and had been using this number since then and as such complainant is not liable to pay amount of Rs.1100/- for the mobile number in question because he was already using this mobile number and same was previously in operation. This practice on the part of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice in order to extract money in a wrong manner. As such disconnection of mobile number of the complainant by the OPs amounts to unfair trade practices and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The illegal disconnection of the mobile number in question also amounts to harassment and mental agony to the complainant as previously he was using this number since 2012 and mobile number in question was disconnected in wrong manner. Therefore, complainant is entitled to activation of his mobile number and is also required to be compensated for harassment and mental agony suffered by him. Otherwise also no bill was outstanding against the complainant nor its proved on the file by the OPs. As such, the facts of the case law referred by learned counsel for the OPs are quite distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand and same is not applicable in the case in hand.

11. In the light of above discussion, the complaint succeeds and same is hereby allowed with cost in favour of the complainant and against the OPs and OPs are directed to activate the mobile number in question immediately and also to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Ashwani Kumar Mehta

12.01.2016 Member Member President