Delhi

East Delhi

CC/135/2022

VINOD PAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

VODAFONE IDEA - Opp.Party(s)

11 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

 CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINT ENCLAVE, DELHI-110 092

 

C.C. No.135/2022

Vinod Pal,

R/o. House No. 138-B, Ram Nagar,

Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051                                                ....Complainant

Versus

Vodafone idea.

Through Officer Incharge,

Regd. Office at: K-62. Chachi Building, Krishna

Nagar, Delhi-110051.

Head Office at:

 A-68, GF, Sector-64, Near Fortis Hospital, Noida

- 201301. U.P.                                                                                           ....OP

 

Date of Institution: 15.03.2022

Judgment Reserved on: 11.05.2023

Judgment Passed on: 11.05.2023

 

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms.Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the complainant against OP w.r.t. deficiency of service in not providing mobile telephone services to the complainant & illegally threatening to disconnect his mobile number.
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that complainant is an advocate having mobile no, 9899996502 which number he has been using for his professional activities, but on 30.03.2021, he got a message from OP stating that one number 9899736093 has a due amount of Rs. 550 - which he paid, failing which this number i.e. 9899996502 would be disconnected. The complainant saw the message and informed the OP that he had never any such number and as such he is not liable to pay the same, but OP after one week. blocked the incoming & outgoing of his number and he under compelled circumstances, after suffering extreme harassment had to deposit this amount and he even at the time was out of city & became moneyless in absence of that mobile number. This happened not only once. but this happened twice and OP had been demanding Rs. 550/- w.rt. mobile number 9899736093, and as such aggrieved from such conduct of OP. the complainant has filed the present case against the OP thereby claiming refund of Rs.550/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and litigation chargers. The complainant has given two address of OP. OPI was served on first address on 14.05.2022 as on the 11 address on 20.05.22. but no written statement was filed and ultimately OP filed its written statement on 24.08.22 that too without any application seeking condonation of delay and therefore vide order dated 21.11.22, it was ordered that written statement of the OP would not be read for the purpose of its defence, being filed beyond the statutory period. Despite that OP again filed evidence and vide order dated 10.02.23 it was again ordered that the evidence in absence of written statement of OP cannot be read for the purpose of proving its facts.
3. Complainant meanwhile has filed its evidence by way of affidavit and has reiterated that contents of the complaint.
4. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. In nut-shell the case of the complainant against the OP is that he saw one message as sent by OP that certain bill amount on phone number 9899736093 are due, which according to the complainant had never been his mobile number. It was the duty of the OP to prove that as to how that number 9899736093 is related to the complainant, but in absence of any written statement or evidence, the OP could not prove any such fact for want of timely filing the written statement. If the OP would have filed the written statement within time, his version could have been appreciated in a better-way but in the absence of its version, the facts stated by the complainant has to be taken as have gone unrebutted.
6. Therefore complainant has been able to prove that OP has demanded Rs. 550/- towards telephone number 9899736093 and this phone number related to OP was not proved. Therefore the complainant has been able to prove that there is deficiency on the part of OP. As far as compensation is concerned, the complainant has stated so many facts w.rt. his profession wrt, missing certain important clients calls on account of disconnected number and also on account of certain sufferings on account of the fact that he was out of city & also want his attending the professional duty in court, however in support of any such contention, no document has been filed on record. Therefore, these facts have not been proved by the complainant nor he has been able to prove that he has suffered as alleged.
7. As far as amount of compensation is concerned, there is no proper rule to ascertain the compensation and in absence of specific contention the compensation of Rs. 5.00.000/- cannot be given. However certain compensation has to be granted on account of the negligence and deficiency on the part of the OP which has been proved. The Commission in this regard has been guided by the precedent & although that there is no guidelines with respect to compensation, the judgment which was already delivered by the Hon'ble NCDRC would help this Commission as to how it should be calculated. In this regard, judgment in Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs Sahil Dawar on 22 December 2020 decided by the Hon'ble NCDRC is relevant.

In that case the dispute before the Hon'ble District Forum was that the Big Bazar charged additional cost of Rs.17 for Carrybags to carry the goods purchased by the complainant and the Hon'ble District Forum ordered the OP (Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd) to pay compensation of Rs. 100/-. The cost of litigation was given as Rs. 1100 and OP was also directed to deposit Rs.5000- in the bank account of State Commission Welfare Fund (Legal Aid).

Coming to the facts of the present case the maximum loss which the complainant suffered and proved is Rs. 550 only and therefore compensation can only be awarded only in that ratio.

Therefore, taking clear view the Commission is granting compensation of Rs.2000.- The OP is also directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.550-from the date of depositing bill with OP till realisation is also as directed to deposit Rs.5000/- in the bank account of State Commission Welfare Fund (Legal Aid). Account No. 10310544717, State Bank of India. I.P. Estate, Delhi.

8. The final judgment is being summarized as follows:

-OP would pay Rs. 550/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of deposit i.e. 06.04.2021 till actual payment and the OP would also pay compensation of Rs.2000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service. The OP would also deposit Rs.5,000/- as cost in State Commission Welfare Fund (Legal Aid) under the intimation of the Commission.

This order be complied by the OP within 30 days from the date of receiving the order and if the OP would not comply the order within 30 days, it would pay the interest @12 p.a. to the complainant till realization.

 

Copy of the Order be supplied/sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 11.05.2023.