BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.217 of 2016

Date of Instt. 17.05.2016

Date of Decision: 03.04.2018

Surjit Singh aged 50 years s/o Sh. Bishan Singh, R/o 263, Khurla Kingra, Backside Punjab Sweet Shop, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Vodafone Essor South Limited, C-31, Industrial Area, Phase-8, Mohali through its authorized representative.

2. Opposite Party No.2 Vodafone Store Opposite Office of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, Tehsil Complex, Jalandhar through its manager/authorized representative.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv and Sh. GS Saini, Adv Counsels for the Complainant.

Sh. KK Arora, Adv and Sh. Dr. G.S. Bajwa, Adv Counsels for the OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is enjoying the corporate connection of Vodafone mobile bearing No.98883-06612 on monthly rent of Rs.100/-, which includes fee calling of 500 minutes 500 Local SMS since long. In the month of March 2013, the company provided the facility of free internet for two months, but on expiry of the period of two months, the company instead of seeking the consent whether the complainant intends to continue the facility of mobile connection, started charging the highest rate, whereas a number of economical plans were available. The complainant contacted the customer care in this regard, but they refused to solve the issue and resultantly disconnected the phone after 03.07.2013, but continued to impose the monthly rent solely for incoming calls and ignored the services attached to the rent i.e. free calling of 500 minutes as well as free SMS.

2. That on 24.08.2013, the applicant was offered one time settlement to Rs.4000/- against the total outstanding amount with the conditions that applicant/complainant has to choose internet connection at monthly charges of Rs.198/- for unlimited usage of internet, which was agreed by the applicant/complainant and the mobile number was activated thereafter. It was also confirmed by the customer care to offer the one time settlement that unlimited plan for the using of internet has been activated, but it caused a great shock when the complainant received the bill for the month of September, 2013 in which company again charged the highest rate of internet usage despite activation of the plan meant for unlimited usage for internet. That when the applicant contacted the customer care as well as nodal officer of the company he was told that no unlimited plant was activated on 24.08.2013 and phone was again deactivated on 23.11.2013, but continued to raise the bill of monthly rent. That having no other alternative to resolve the issue the complainant had filed the complaint No.168 of 2014 on 15.05.2014 before this Forum for the redressal of his grievance and after hearing the matter, the Forum decided the complaint on 13.11.2014 and passed the following order:-

“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 was also awarded Rs.4000/- in lump sum as compensation and litigation expenses on account of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as discussed above. The outstanding amount of Rs.498/- may be adjusted from this amount and compliance be made within 15 days. Copies of order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.”

3. That in compliance with the above referred order ,the OP paid the award money to the tune of Rs.3500/- after deducting the amount of outstanding bill of Rs.498/- and activated the connection after re-verification of residential as well as office address. But after two days of the reactivation of connection, the OPs stopped the outgoing facility from the above connection i.e. Mobile No.98883-06612. The applicant/complainant again apprised the OP No.1 through email on 09.03.2015 regarding the order of this Forum. The complainant was replied through email that they regret to inform the complainant that the number cannot be reactivated as the same is deactivated permanently. The complainant was apprised that the facility has been withdrawn due to outstanding amount of Rs.200/- of mobile number 97807-76446, but the complainant denied that having any such mobile number issued to him, but the OP No.2 insisted to deposit the alleged outstanding amount of Rs.200/- to get phone 98883-06612 reactivated. Since, the complainant never got the mobile No.97807-76446 issued in his name, therefore, he asked the OP No.2 to furnish the details of documents submitted at the time of release of the alleged connection No.97807-76446, but they failed to provide any documents alleged to be submitted at the time of release of connection. Thereafter, the complainant again on 30.03.2015 asked the OP through email to furnish the above said information and thereafter, the OP gave a reply through email that the mobile of the complainant is not suspended due to outstanding amount, but due to negative credit verification and advised to visit the OP No.2 to get the mobile reactivated, but despite repeated request and visit, the OP failed to reactivate the mobile of the complainant and whereby caused mental harassment to the complainant as well as deficiency in service and thus, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and compensation of Rs.50,000/- be awarded to the complainant for harassment and mental agony.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the applicant has failed to disclose the cause of action regarding which the complaint is relating deficiency in service and further alleged that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint rather the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and in view of the above Section of Indian Telegraph Act, this Forum has no jurisdiction and also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground that the Agreement Form have been duly conferred the jurisdiction with his free consent upon the Courts at Mohali and as such, the present complaint filed by the complainant before this Forum is not maintainable. It is further averred that the present complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant had intentionally not disclosed an other number i.e. 97807-76446 and against which an amount of Rs.200/- was outstanding not paid by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant was also availing mobile connection bearing No.97807-76446 to the mobile connection, bearing number 98883-06612 and against which he has failed to make the payment of outstanding. The mobile connection bearing No.97807-76446 was activated on 16.02.2010 in the name of the complainant here, Customer Agreement Form, Tariff Plan and ID Proof of customer is annexed with the reply, which was disconnected on 31.03.2011 due to the non-payment of the bill of Rs.200/-. The complainant fails to make the payment of the same mobile connection, which was earlier used by the complainant due to which the present mobile connection used by the complainant was disconnected. The complainant failed to make the payment of Rs.200/- despite repeated intimation through SMS's sent and calls made by the OP from time to time for the uninterrupted services availed by the complainant during that period. On merits, the OPs alleged that they have complied the order dated 13.11.2014 of this Forum and reactivated the mobile connection of the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA and some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, counsel for OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/4 and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. After considering the argument as well as perusal of the file, it is admitted that the complainant had filed previously a complaint against the OP, before this Forum and the said complaint was decided on 13.11.2014 and copy of the order is available on the file Ex.C-1 and as per order, the OP was directed to reactivate the mobile connection of the complainant, but after payment of Rs.498.80/- by the complainant and accordingly, the mobile connection of the complainant was reactivated in compliance of the said order dated 13.11.2014, but after few days of the compliance, the OP admittedly again deactivated the mobile connection of the complainant on the pretext that there is a due bill amount of Rs.200/- towards the complainant in connection with mobile number 97807-76446, which was previously used by the complainant. As per version of the OP, taken in para No.4 on preliminary objection in the reply that the said bill amount of Rs.200/- was due on 31.03.2011 and if there was any bill amount due towards the complainant, then why this plea was not taken by the OP in the previous reply of the complaint, which shows that virtually there was no bill amount due towards the complainant, if there was any due, then obviously the OP will take a plea in the previous reply of the complaint and further the complainant categorically denied that he was not having a connection of mobile number 97807-76447 at any time and asked the OP through email to provide him a detail of the said mobile in regard to payment of previous bill, ID Proof and bank connection was issued, but in response to that the OP could not able to bring on the file any documentary evidence to establish that the said mobile phone was ever used by the complainant, the OP simply referred a document Ex.OP/1, which is Customer Agreement Form, submitted by the complainant at the time of getting connection of the mobile 98883-06612, which is now deactivated, but the disputed mobile number is mentioned under-neath the Customer Agreement Form Ex.OP/1, but below the signature of the complainant, which shows that the said number was entered by the OP later on just to create an evidence, which is not acceptable because the same does not bear the signature of the complainant and moreover, upon one form, two connections cannot be released. So, under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs are harassing the complaint again and again without any reason and rhyme and therefore, the OPs are liable to pay exemplary compensation to the complainant.

9. We have also considered the plea taken by the OP that as per Section 7-B of 'Indian Telegraph Act', this Forum has no jurisdiction, but we are of the opinion that the filing of the complainant before this Forum is additional remedy to the consumer under Section 3 of the 'Consumer Protection Act' and moreover, the matter between the same party have been already adjudicated by the District Consumer Forum, vide order dated 13.11.2014, but in that complaint, the OP never took such a plea in regard to jurisdiction barred under Section 7-B of the 'Indian Telegraph Act' as well as in general territorial jurisdiction as taken in the present complaint.

10. So for the concern of territorial jurisdiction, we find that the OP has its branch office at Jalandhar, if so then, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and therefore, the plea taken by the OP is not acceptable.

11. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to reactivate the mobile phone of the complainant bearing No.98883-06612 and further, OPs are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant for harassment and mental agony. The aforesaid compliance be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the OPs will further liable to pay interest on the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs.10,000/-, @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till realization. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

03.04.2018 Member President