DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member Date of filing: 13/09/2022
CC/170/2022
Joseph Abraham
Naduthalakalayil House, Kallingalpadam
Panniyankara Post
Palakkad – 678 683 - Complainant
(Party in person)
V/s
1. Vodafone Idea Limited
4th Floor, KTDFC Building
Trans Towers, Near Kalabhavan Theatre
Vazhuthacaud, Trivandrum – 695 014
(By Adv. P.Muralidharan)
2. Vodafone Mini Store
Near Flex Gym
Vadakkencherry Bazar Road
Vadakkencherry, Palakkad – 678 683 - Opposite parties
(By Adv. Shiju Kuriakose)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant was using post paid family plan of the 1st opposite party with one primary No: 8943732473 and 2 secondary numbers 9961658680 & 8129409202. Since there were several issues regarding network of the Vodafone, the complainant raised complaints relating to that. But the opposite party’s customer care did not respond to his queries and closed the complaints without any action. Hence he decided to change the connection to pre-paid and approached the 2nd opposite party, Vodafone mini store on 09/06/2022. They asked him to wait until the bill date and he paid Rs. 1,178/- for the month of May.
Even after changing, network issues continued and he decided to port out from the network after the billing date for the month of June. While he was trying to do this, he got a message that his secondary numbers had a due bill amount. When he contacted the 1st opposite party, it was informed that they removed his secondary numbers from the family plan on June 9th, 2022 as per 2nd opposite party’s request. The 1st opposite party had issued separate bills for secondary numbers. As per family plan policy, the complainant had only to pay the family plan amount for the primary number and no separate bills were issued for secondary numbers. But the 1st opposite party removed the secondary numbers from the family plan without his consent. The complainant called the customer care to solve the issue; but they did not respond positively. He raised a complaint before the appellate authority to remove the bills for his secondary numbers. But they also did not do anything. So he paid the overcharged bill for his secondary numbers on 25th July 2022.
He filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to refund the overcharged bill of Rs. 1,010/- and all expenses incurred in filing this complaint.
2. There was no representation from the opposite parties even after receipt of notice, and they were set ex-parte. Later they filed application to review the order setting them ex-parte and it was dismissed as the Commission has no authority to set aside an order setting them ex-parte. Further, they did not file version within the statutory period and there was no representation from their part.
3. Complainant was continuously absent on 20/12/2022, 10/03/2023 & 13/03/2023 and it was taken for orders based on merit. From the conduct of the complaint, it appears that he is not interested in proceeding with the complaint.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of March, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil
Cost- Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
