District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.493/2021.
Date of Institution: 28.09.2021.
Date of Order: 14.12.2022.
Prashant Kaul aged 61 years son of late Shri D.N.Kaul r/o D-29, Jal Vidyut Apartments, Sector-21C, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
Vodafone Idea Ltd. (formerly known as Idea Cellular Ltd), A-68, Sector-64, Noida – 201301. Service also be effected at: C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110 020.
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Raghuvesh Singhal, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Ankur Kanwar, Jr. counsel for Shri Rishi Kapoor, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
Today the case was fixed for filing reply on behalf of opposite party.
Instead of filing reply, Shri Ankur Kanwar, Jr. counsel for Shri Rishi Kapoor, counsel for opposite party has made a statement that “the matter has been settled and complainant is ready to withdraw and having no objection with the said matter and if the same is disposed off, opposite parties are ready to settle the matter with an amount of Rs.10,000/- with regard to all the issues shall be treated as dismissed, with no any objections left for future from opposite parties.”
On the other hand, Shri Raghuvesh Singhal, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that “I only press for litigation and harassment charges and compensation/damages on account of mental agony harassment and loss suffered by complainant due to the wrongful act of the OP company.”
In this case, the complaint filed by the complainant on 28.09.2021 and the opposite party has made a statement on 14.12.2022 that the matter has been settled and complainant is ready to withdraw and having no objection with the said matter and if the same is disposed off, opposite party is ready to settle the matter with an amount of Rs.10,000/- with regard to all the issues shall be treated as dismissed, with no any objections left for future from opposite parties. Shri Raghuvesh Singhal, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that “I only press for litigation and harassment charges and compensation/damages on account of mental agony harassment and loss suffered by complainant due to the wrongful act of the OP company. Keeping in view of the statement of both the parties, The Commission is of the opinion that no doubt they have harassed the complainant mentally. Hence, they are negligent on their part. Deficiency of service is proved. . Hence the complaint is disposed off qua the harassment & litigation charges.
4 Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as per the settlement between the parties. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1100/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 14.12.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
