Date of filing : 13.3.2018

Judgment : 06.02.2019

Mr. Ayan Sinha, Member

            This is a complaint under Section 11 & 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 made by Payal Shaw, daughter of Mr. Gorakh Shaw of 5/53, Dum Dum Road, P.S.-Sinthi, Kolkata-700030 against Vodafone India Limited of Peninsula Corporate Park. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 also of Constantia office Complex, 11, Dr. U. N. Brahmachari Street, Kolkata-700 017 and also of 13 B. L. Saha Road, Mahabirtala, P.S.-Behala, Kolkata, West Bengal – 700 053 (OP)praying for directions upon OP to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment, along with cost of proceedings and to discontinue unfair trade practices of OP.

            Facts in brief are that the Complainant is a post-paid subscriber of  Vodafone with mobile No.8013259499 and the said phone was stolen on 02.12.2017 against which the Complainant lodged a complaint for theft being  FIR No.135 dt.2.12.2017 under section 381 IPC, at Sinthi P.S. The Complainant also lodged request for the suspension of Sim Card with the Customer care complaint help line of OP And the same was suspended/blocked vide S.R.No.428909802 dt2.12.2007. During 1^st week of February, 2018, the Complainant received a call on her alternative number from the men of OP demanding the payment of bills for December, 2017 and January, 2018 against the above said No. and when the Complainant told the sim was blocked, the Customer Case executive told that though the sim was suspended but was again revived and the sim was active. She called up again to the customer care No. of OP and came to know that the said sim, was revived/resumed vide SR No.439731118 dt.27.12.2017 and was dispatched to her address and was received by the Complainant and got activated after tele verification and Aadhar Verification for which the Complainant neither requested to issue duplicate/new sim card for the said No. nor completed any tele verification/aadhar verification. She immediately requested to block the said sim and the same was blocked vide S.R.No.466124880 dt.22.2.2018 and found the bills with the name “Eastern Hardware Mart” appearing under her name, without her knowledge/consent. The Complainant finding no other alternatives sent a legal notice dt.22.2.2018 to the OP for providing her certain documents to which OP neglected to give proper reply but vide email dt.24.2.2018 OP assured to investigate and subsequently on 26.12.2018 OP waived its claim amount till January, 2018 without any clarifications for issuance of the sim or to whom it was delivered. She being an Advocate has been badly tensed due to the fear that the sim might have been delivered in a wrong hand causing serious damage to her prestige in the society for which the OP is liable to compensate. Thus, the Complainant filed this case alleging OP not only for deficiency in service but also for unfair trade practices.

            OP appeared and filed a Misc. Application No.MA/121/2018 which was rejected by this Forum vide order No.7 dt.29.5.2018 against which OP preferred a Revision and Ho’ble SCDRC was pleased to direct the OP allowing to file written version within 31.10.2018 subject to cost of Rs.30,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. But the OP did not comply the order of Hon’ble SCDRC and no written version was filed. So, the matter was fixed for ex-parte hearing, vide order dt.31.10.2018.

            The Complainant has filed Affidavit-in-chief where she has reiterated the facts as mentioned in the petition of complaint. Ld. Advocate for the OP was present during the final hearing. Heard Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.

            Main point for determination is –

i)          Whether there was a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.

ii)         Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

            Decision with reasons

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            On perusal of the recorded documents, reveal that the Complainant has already filed an FIR No.135 dt.2.12.2017 after missing of the said SIM No.8013259499. She has also communicated to Vodafone (OP) vide their SR No.428909802 dt.2.12.2017 for blocking the SIM but without the consent of the Complainant, same was resumed Vide SR No.439731118 dt.27.12.2018 and the SIM was delivered to wrong hands as alleged by the Complainant. Upon scrutiny of the E-mail dt.22.2.2018 sent to OP by the Complainant where the above facts have already been agitated against which OP admitted to waive off the amount of R.839.11 towards non usage of the connection for January, 2018 and February, 2018 and the same was done.

            Now, the main grievance of the Complainant is that since the SIM has been wrongly delivered, there might be a wrong usage of the SIM for a certain period since it is in her name. said fact is substantiated from the very  fact that even though Complainant had requested to block the SIM but in spite of the same bill was raised for January and February, 2018.

            So, we hold that although OP waived off the billing amount, but remained silent for the nonusage and wrong delivery of sim as no counter evidence is adduced by the OP. Moreover, the OP did not give any undertaking to the Complainant assuring her that she will not be accountable for any wrong usage for that particular period.

             So, since there is deficiency of service by OP, the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs.

           Complainant has only prayed for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, but, in our view, in the given situation of this,  if a direction is given upon OPs to pay Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant, justice would be served.

Hence

                           ordered

CC/125/2018 and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OPs.

The OPs are directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, in default the amount shall carry interest @8%p.a. till the date of its realization.