Versus
- Vodafone Idea Limited (formerly Idea Cellular Limited) An Aditya Birla Group & Vodafone Partnership, Suman Tower, Plot No.18, Sector No.11, Gandhinagar-382011 Through its Director/MD (E.Mail:-pankaj.kapdeo@vodafoneidea.com)
- Vodafone Idea Limited (formerly Idea Cellular Limited) An Aditya Birla Group & Vodafone Partnership, Shop No.4, Lodhi Complex, The Mall Road, The Mall Enclave, VF Store, Ludhiana-141001 Trough its Branch Manager.
- Sunil Sood, Director, Vodafone Idea Limited (formerly Idea Cellular Limited), An Aditya Birla Group & Vodafone Partnership, Suman Tower, Plot No.18, Sector No.11, Gandhinagar-382011 (E.Mail:-pankaj.kapdeo@vodafoneidea.com)
- Ravinder Takkar, Managing Director-Cum-CEO, Vodafone Idea Limited (formerly Idea Cellular Limited), An Aditya Birla Group & Vodafone Partnership, Suman Tower, Plot No.18, Sector No.11, Gandhinagar-382011 (E.Mail:-pankaj.kapdeo@vodafoneidea.com). …..Opposite parties
Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
QUORUM:
SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Hari Om Jindal, Advocate.
For OPs : Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate.
ORDER
PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that OP1 Company is engaged in the business of telecommunication whereas OP2 is the branch office of OP1 at Ludhiana and OP3 and OP4 are directors of OP1 Company. The complainant has connection with the OPs having mobile No.9780123987. The complainant stated that the OPs on their own started deducting money from the said connection since January 2021 without his request and consent and even without availing any facility by the complainant. Even the Ops started deducting amount on monthly basis from his said mobile connection and further started deducting amount four to five times in a month, the detail of which is reproduced as under:-
Rs.7 deducted on 20.01.2021
Rs.10 deducted on 23.01.2021
Rs.7 deducted on 15.02.2021
Rs.3 deducted on 24.02.2021
Rs.3 deducted on 06.03.2021
Rs.7 deducted on 16.04.2021
Rs.7 deducted on 01.05.2021
Rs.3 deducted on 19.05.2021
Rs.20 deducted on 23.05.2021
Rs.25 deducted on 23.05.2021
Rs.25 deducted on 27.06.2021
The complainant further stated that he visited OP2 office on29.06.2021 and lodged a complaint with the OPs. The employee of the OPs told that the amounts were deducted inadvertently and assured the complainant to refund the amounts within 24 hours and further assured him not to face these types of problem/issues in future and felt sorry for all. However, the OPs again deducted the amounts from the said connection of the complainant, the detail of which is reproduced as under:-
Rs.7 deducted on 17.07.2021
Rs.25 deducted on 15.08.2021
Rs.10 deducted on 16.08.2021
Rs.21 deducted on 17.08.2021
The complainant again visited OP2 on 21.08.2021 and apprised about their said act and conduct. Then the employee of the OPs again told the complainant that the said amounts were deducted inadvertently and he lodged two complaints in this respect. He also assured the complainant to refund the said amounts within 24 hours and further assured him not to face these types of problem/issues in future and felt sorry for all.
The complainant further stated that no action was taken by the OPs as his complaint No. PUN V00586181927 was closed by the OPs without any action over the same. Even the complainant got started DND service from the OPs on his mobile connection but the OPs continued to send promotional messages to harass and disturb him. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 21.08.2021 upon the OPs through Sh. Hari Om Jindal, Advocate via Email IDs of the OPs but the OPs did not give any reply to the same. Thereafter, the OPs without any request and consent of the complainant and even without availing any facility by him from the OPs, deducted amounts of Rs.25 on 09.12.2021, Rs.7 on 17.12.2021 and also deducted Rs.33/- on 08.01.2022. The complainant made a telephonic call on customer care of the OPs and apprised about the same and then the OPs returned the amount of Rs.33/- but did not return the earlier deducted amounts. According to the complainant, the OPs are illegally & fraudulently deducted amounts from his mobile connection since January 2021 and even did not take any action on his complaints and also did not refund the amount deducted by them. The said act of the OPs amounts to gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant claimed to have suffered mental pain, agony, torture etc. In the end, the complainant prayed for issuing directions to the Ops to refund the aforesaid amounts along with interest and to restrain them from deducting any amount from his mobile connection. The complainant also prayed for paying amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed joint written statement and took preliminary submissions and objections by assailing the complaint on the ground of maintainability; concealment of material facts etc. The OPs stated that the complainant became their customer by porting in mobile No.9780123987 to their network in the pre-paid category. Even the complainant has concealed the material facts and his allegations are not supported with any documentary evidence and he has tried his luck to get undue advantage from them. The OPs further stated that the complainant has sought exorbitant compensation with an attempt to blow the issue out of proportion. The claim of huge amount of compensation required elaborate evidence by the parties which cannot be decided in summary proceedings and as such, the complainant should approach Civil Courts for redressal of his grievances.
On merits, the OPs reiterated the crux mentioned in the preliminary submissions and objections. However, the OPs stated that the complainant was using Value Added services himself on account of which the deductions were made. At present the status of the number is inactive on account of non-recharge by the complainant. The OPs have denied any deficiency in service on its part and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated his averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents i.e. Ex. C1 is the copy of status of complaints and requests, Ex. C2 is the copy of legal notice dated 21.08.2021, Ex. C3 is the copy of Email dated 21.08.2021 and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Manoj Madan, General Manager-Legal, Authorized Signatory, Vodafone Idea Limited, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase 7, Mohali (Punjab) along with document i.e. Ex. OP1 is the copy of Customer Application Form, Ex. OP2 is the copy of Value Added Services and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement produced on record by both the parties.
6. Undisputedly, the complainant is a subscriber of mobile No.9780123987 with the OPs which he got ported vide Customer Information Form dated 23.01.2014 Ex. OP1. The complainant had the facility to use Value Added Services on his said mobile connection. The only grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have deducted some amounts from his connection, mentioned hereinbefore. According to the OPs, the said deductions were made on account of availing Value Added Services by the complainant regarding which the OPs have placed on record Ex. OP2. The complainant could not deny this fact of availing Value Added Services and even has not filed any rejoinder/replication to controvert the facts mentioned in the written statement filed by the OPs. So the complainant has failed to discharge initial onus to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by any cogent and convincing evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while relying upon on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. As well as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544), has held as under:-
“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.”
7. As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
8. Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.
(Monika Bhagat) (Sanjeev Batra)
Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:27.08.2024.
Gobind Ram.
