DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
JALANDHAR
Consumer Complaint No.221/2020
Date of Decision of Application:12.01.2021
Amritpal Singh Vs. Vodafone Idea Ltd. etc.
Application for setting aside exparte order dated 23.09.2020.
QUORUM:
S.Kuljit Singh, Presiding Member
Smt. Jyotsna , Member
Counsel for the applicants/OPs No.1 & 2:
Sh. K. K. Arora, advocate for applicants/OPs No.1 & 2.
1. This order will dispose of the application dated 26.10.2020 filed by applicants/OPs No.1 & 2 for setting aside the exparte order dated 23.09.2020 passed against applicants/OPs No.1 & 2. It is alleged that offices of the OPs had been functioning in a restricted manner and the employees are working from home and as such, the factum of the service of the notice was not in the knowledge of the Legal Officer of the company and as such in the absence of the same, he could not instruct the counsel for appear before this Commission on 23.09.2020. Moreover, the case was fixed for exparte arguments and it is prayed that ex parte order dated 23.09.2020 be set aside.
2. We have gone through the record on the file.
3. In the present case, notice issued to OPs No.1 & 2 sent by Regd. Post on 14.08.2020, but same was not received back so far. More than 30 days have been elapsed. Regd. Cover has not been received back so far, so presumption of valid service arises, but today none has come present on behalf of the OPs No.1 and 2 inspite of service. As such, OPs No.1 & 2 are proceeded against exparte.
4. We are of the considered opinion that there is no provision to set aside the exparte order passed by District Forum. As per the principal of law already laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak& Ors Vs. AchyutKashinathKarekar& Another, Civil Appeal No.4307 of 2007 wherein, it was held that “….The District Forum and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside exparte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the statue cannot be exercised……..”
5. We are also placing reliance on the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in case of Punjab State Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shera Singh decided on 01.07.2013 wherein it is held that “District Forums has no power to set aside exparte order passed by it and the onlyremedy of the aggrieved party is to file an appeal before the State Commission”
6. In view of the above discussion, the present application is dismissed.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
Member President/12.01.2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.221 of 2020
Date of Instt. 07.08.2020 Date of Decision: 12.01.2021
Amritpal Singh S/o Shri Gurminder Singh C/o Indersons Complex, Opposite Ram Sharnam Ashram, Kala Sanghian Road, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar-144001
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Vodafone Idea Ltd., C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-8, Mohali, Punjab-160071 Through its Managing Director/Directors/Principal Officer.
2. Vodafone Idea Limited, Village Kot Kalan, Old Phagwara Road, Jalandhar Cantt., Jalandhar-144005 Through its Manager/Principal Officer/Zonal Head/Pankaj Chhabra/Manpreet Singh.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Atul Malhotra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
OPs exparte.
Order
Jyotsna (Member)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OPs are engaged in providing mobile and other services throughout the country for consideration through its branch office at Jalandhar. That being a private telecom industry and company, OPs are bound by the rules, regulations and instructions of the Govt. of India and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (in short TRAI). That complainant is a consumer of goods and services provided by OPs for consideration. Complainant was using and running a mobile number 87950 00001 issued by OPs for the last about 4-5 years continuously. Complainant had got registered and connected the said mobile phone number with all of the Government departments and offices and private operators and service providers for online transaction and e-banking etc. Complainant was using the said mobile number for self and personal use only. That the complainant was regularly making payment of bills of the said mobile connection and never had defaulted in making payment of due amounts. The true copies of bills issued by OPs are Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and payments made by the complainant through bank are Ex.C-7.
2. That on 28.11.2019, the complainant was shocked to learn at about 06:01 am that the said mobile number 87950 00001 was canceled by OPs suddenly without any notice or information to complainant. That the complainant approached OP No.2 and demanded justification and explanation from the officials namely Pankaj Chhabra and Manpreet Singh through phones as well as personally. But the said officials could not give any satisfactory reply. That the complainant had also showed bills and payments to OPs and their officials in which all of the payments stood clear and paid but OPs and their officials refused to help complainant in any way. Further a cheque bearing No.864443 of SBI for Rs.410/- has been issued by complainant to OPs but OPs have not encashed the same for reasons best known to OPs. The said cheque was taken by Gagan, an employee of OPs who used to come and take cheque earlier also. That complainant learnt from reliable sources that OPs have sold the said mobile number 8795000001 of complainant to some other person at a very high price through some broker and due to this reason the said number of complainant was cancelled in a hurry, illegally and arbitrarily against the rules, regulations, instructions of TRAI and terms and conditions of agreement. That copy of receipt issued by OPs and two sale bills showing number of complainant are Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-10. That the complainant had mentioned the said mobile number in all of his correspondence and to all of relatives, family members, friends and business circle clients etc. that due to cancellation of the said mobile number by OPs, compo had to suffer great shame and disrespect in relatives, family members, friends and business circle clients etc. and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to restore the mobile number 87950 00001 of complainant with immediate effect alongwith all of the benefits accrued to complainant qua the said mobile number and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant for the above mentioned deficiency in service, negligence, unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practices on the part of the OPs due to which the complainant suffered mental tension and harassment etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service both the OPs miserably failed to appear and ultimately, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte and thereafter, the counsel for the OPs filed application for setting aside the exparte order, but the same was dismissed as the District Commission has no power to set aside the exparte order.
4. In order to prove his respective version, counsel for the complainant produced on the file his respective evidence.
5. We have gone through the documents filed by the complainant alongwith complaint. The case of the complainant is that complainant was using and running a mobile No.87950 00001 issued by the OPs which was disconnected by the OPs on 28.11.2019.The complainant was regularly making payment of the bill of the said mobile connection and had never defaulted in making payment of due amounts. The complainant has brought on the file copies of six bills for the month of June 2019 to November 2019, which are Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. While going through the copy of the bill submitted by the complainant vide Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6, we find that argument of the complainant does not match with the above documents. Monthly charges as per bill are as under:-
1. June, 2019 (Ex.C-1) Rs.366.28/-
2. July, 2019 (Ex.C-2) Rs.313.88/-
3. August, 2019 (Ex.C-3) Rs.356.36/-
4. September, 2019 (Ex.C-4) Rs.59/-
6. October, 2019 (Ex.C-5) Rs.0.0/-
7. November, 2019 (Ex.C-6) Rs.0.0/-
Ex.C-1 shows that there was previous balance outstanding of Rs.2114.82 which shows that bills for so many months were outstanding considering the utilization pattern of the complainant, which clearly shows that the complainant was a regular defaulter. All the bills have a printed line as under:-
“Pay previous balance, if any, immediately to avoid disconnection.”
The complainant has failed to adhere to this condition. That complainant has further claimed that he had paid further cheque bearing No.864443 of SBI for Rs.410/- which OPs never encashed. However, he has not submitted any receipt or document to substantiate his claim. After considering the above observation, we do not find any merit in the complaint of the complainant and same is hereby dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
6. 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 Kuljit Singh
12.01.2021 Member President
