BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.348 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 26.08.2019

      Date of Decision:15.01.2020

Manohar Lal Age 64 years son of late Shri Bishan Dass Resident of 47 Gulmarg Avenue Phase 2 Ladhewali Jalandhar City Mobile No.9465840712

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Vodafone Idea Limited through its Manager Circle Office:-C-105, Industrial Area, Phase7, Mohali-160055 Fax No.01722236347 Phone No.+919888098880

2.       Through counter incharge Ms Anu having mobile no.8528589000 and 9646372597 Office at Pun-Vodafone Store Civil Lines, Jalandhar service providers.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Karnail Singh           (President)

Smt. Jyotsna                   (Member)

Present:       Complainant in Person.

OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is senior citizen of 64 years age. He was having prepaid Vodafone sim no.7508205618. On 30.05.2019, he personally contacted at the counter of Ms. Anu (having mobile No.85285-89000 and 9646372597) Pun-Vodafone Store Civil Lines, Jalandhar to reactivate the above number. She told that this number cannot be reactivated as prepared and can be activated only by converting it into postpaid. She told to the complainant that for that plan he has to deposit Rs.300/- as its security to reactivate the sim, which is refundable and he has to pay only monthly charges of the used voice calling and network during the month. No receipt of Rs.300/- was given to the complainant. Except this nothing more was told to him. She got signed the papers after collecting his IDs and not allowed to him to read the signed papers carefully and accordingly, the sim No.7508205618 was activated on 30.05.2019 and was used for 10 days only upto June 9, 2019, after this till date the sim is not being used.

2.                That on 09.07.2019, the complainant received a telephonic call upon his mobile No.9465840712 from Ms. Anu that complainant has not paid Rs.214/- a bill for the month of June 2019 of Vodafone sim no.7508205618 and accordingly, he personally visited and pay the bill of Rs.220/- instead of Rs.240/-. He also submitted an application on the same day with request to Ms. Anu to disconnect the Vodafone No. 7508205618 with immediate effect as the number is not being used. She instead of disconnecting the phone number told to the complainant that it will not be disconnected and have to pay Rs.350/- every month. During the second week of August, 2019, he again received a call from Ms. Anu for depositing of bill Rs.350/- and accordingly, the complainant again visited himself and requested Ms. Anu that he has already submitted an application for disconnecting the number and why the bill has again issued to him, but she did not agree and as such, the act and conduct of the OPs is tantamount to deficiency in service and as such, the complainant suffered a mental tension and harassment, which gave necessity to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of the bill i.e. Rs.850/- and cost of litigation Rs.10,000/- and compensation for mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service both the OPs failed to appear and ultimately, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.

4.                In order to prove his claim, the complainant brought on the file his own affidavit Ex.CA and documents i.e. receipt of the bill amount Ex.C-1 and further an application with request to disconnect the connection Ex.C-2 and other receipt for payment of the bill amount Ex.C-3.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                From the averments as made in the complaint as well as documents placed on the file itself reveals that the version of the complainant, to some extent is apparently proved, when the complainant has submitted an application Ex.C-2 on 09.07.2019 for disconnecting of the mobile connection, then why the second bill Ex.C3 for amounting to Rs.350/- was issued to the complainant. This is clear cut negligence, deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. We cannot said that the amount deposited by the complainant, vide receipt Ex.C-3 of Rs.350/- is any previous arrear, because the bill Ex.C-1 issued to the complainant on 09.07.2019, means upto 09.07.2019 the previous total amount of Rs.220/- had been deposited by the complainant and on the same date i.e. 09.07.2019 an application for disconnecting of the said mobile connection has been filed by the complainant, but why the OPs remained silent and issued the second bill to the complainant, when he was not using the mobile sim. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that there is a grave negligence on the part of the OP No.2/Ms. Anu, who is employee of the OP No.1. Whenever there is a relation of master and servant, then obviously any act done by the agent on behalf of the master, for that both are liable, so accordingly, in the instant complaint both are negligent and also caused mental tension and agony to the complainant by sending a second bill and accordingly, we find force in the submission of complainant.

7.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is exparte partly accepted and both the OPs are directed to refund the excess bill amount received from the complainant i.e. Rs.350/- and further, both the OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The said compliance be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OPs will further liable to pay interest on the above whole amount i.e. Rs.15,350/- @ 12% per annum from the date of filing complaint i.e. 26.08.2019, till realization. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8.                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                                                 Jyotsna                            Karnail Singh

15.01.2020                                Member                          President