Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/13/480

Munshi Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

18 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                 Complaint No: 480 of 09.07.2013

                                                                                                                    Date of Decision: 18.02.2015

                                                                                                                   

Munshi Lal Kapoor, Resident of C-442, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Focal Point, Jamalpur, Ludhiana.

……Complainant

Versus 

1. M/s Vodafone India Limited, Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, through its Managing Director.

2. M/s Vodafone South Limited, C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali-160071, through its Regional Manager.

3. M/s Vodafone Store, Opp. State Bank of India, Gill Road, Ludhiana,141003, through its Managing Director.

…..Opposite parties 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                   Smt.Babita, Member

 

Present:       Sh.S.S.Heer, Advocate for complainant.

                   OP1 and OP3 exparte.

                   Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate for OP2.

 

                   

                        ORDER

 

(SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

 

 

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Munshi Lal Kapoor, Resident of C-442, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Focal Point, Jamalpur, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against M/s Vodafone India Limited, Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, through its Managing Director and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to pay an amount of Rs.4.00 lacs as compensation towards deficiency in service, business loss and unnecessary harassment, mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant. Further Ops be directed to refund the amount of Rs.5000/- deposited on 19.4.13 towards international roaming charges and Rs.150/- charged as international roaming charges in the bill for the period 21.5.13 to 20.6.13 alongwith interest @ 24 p.a. from the date of deposit till its realization with cost.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is a subscriber of Vodafone no.9814038140 and the necessary charges as per the bills raised by the OPs were cleared upto 20.06.13 by the complainant. The complainant intended to go on a foreign trip and the date for the same was fixed 20.04.13. ON 19.04.13 morning the complainant inquired from call centre of the OPs regarding the procedure for the activation of international roaming facility on his mobile and they have instructed the complainant to contact their store i.e. OP3 alongwith photo copies of Passport, Air Ticket and also deposit Rs.3000/- on account of international roaming service on his mobile. Accordingly, the complainant approached OP3 and contacted Mr.Harjot, the concerned official, who asked the complainant to deposit Rs.5000/- towards international roaming charges alongwith the proof of foreign tour and the activation of roaming service will be provided after 14 days. Thereafter, he contacted the call centre of OPs, as his flight was fixed for 20.04.13. Then the complainant received a reply from the call centre that the international roaming will definitely be activated within 24 hours. After confirmation from the call centre of the OPs and also on the assurance of Madam Baljeet, Store Centre Head, complainant deposited Rs.5000/- by cash, vide receipt no.PJB00IC30419 5601276 dated 19.04.13. But when on 20.04.13 complainant contacted the call centre of the Ops regarding the confirmation of activation of international roaming, they refused to activate the same, due to non receipt of the request from the OP3 and they advised the complainant to visit the office of OP3 and requested them for forwarding the activation request again. The complainant again requested them to consider his request for activation of international roaming. Then the concerned officials of call centre assured the complainant that the international roaming on his mobile will be activated soon. To the surprise of the complainant, when he came back on 28.4.13 and inquired from the call centre regarding the same, they told that till date the request has not been received from the Vodafone store. Complainant also served a registered A.D. letter dated 1.6.13 upon the OPs. On receipt of the said letter dated 1.6.13 they have activated the international roaming on 4.6.13 to 20.6.13 and charged Rs.150 towards roaming charges and added in the bill for the period 21.5.13 to 20.06.13. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OP1 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and the names of the Ops have not been properly mentioned by the complainant; the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that as per the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan and others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that when there is a special remedy provided under S7-B of the India Telegraph bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Further stated that in pursuance to the request of the complainant for activation of international roaming, as the complainant intended to go on a foreign tour and the same was activated on the mobile connection no.9814038140 by the OPs. Thus, the complainant himself has not been able to get his mobile handset updated for using international roaming facility; the complaint is barred for want of jurisdiction. On merits, submitted that the contents of para no.1is matter of record. Further admitted to the extent that the complainant is paying the bills as raised by the OPs company, but denied the complainant is consumer under Consumer Protection Act. Further submitted that the complainant was called upon to deposit the document as required as per the guidelines of the DOT alongwith the security deposit of Rs.5000/-. The representative of the company duly assured to the complainant that his international roaming will be activated within 48 hours and he has to update his handset to avail the international roaming services on his mobile number. Further denying all other allegations of the complaint, Ops prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 

4.                Notice sent to OP3 was served. But none had come present on behalf of OP3. As such, OP3 was proceeded exparte, vide order dated 7.10.13. Notice sent to OP1, through registered post on 17.09.13. But no report was received. As such, after expiry of 30 days waiting period, OP1 was also proceeded exparte, vide order dated 22.10.13.

5.                It may also be added that during the pendency of the complaint an application for dismissal of the complaint on behalf of OP2 was filed. The said application was dismissed on 11.09.14, after receiving the reply to the application from the complainant. Further at the stage of evidence of complainant an application for amendment in the name of OP2 was filed. But reply to the application was not filed. Rather Ld. counsel for complainant had suffered a statement that he has no objection, if the application dated 27.10.14 for amendment in the name of OP2 is allowed. As such, in view of the statement suffered by Ld. counsel for complainant, the aforesaid application was allowed, vide order dated 11.11.14 by this Forum. Thereafter amended title was filed.

6.                Ld. counsel for complainant has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant Sh.Munshi Lal Kapoor Ex.CA, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OPs has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Ashutosh Kalia, Senior Manager Legal, Vodafone Essar South Ltd. C-131, Phase-VIII, Industrial Area, Mohali Ex.RA, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement.

7.                Case was fixed for arguments. Ld. counsel for complainant filed written arguments averring that complainant being subscriber of Vodafone no.9814038140 had been paying all the bills raised by the OPs. As such, the complainant is consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. As per section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act he was entitled for the additional remedy. Further averred that the complainant intended to go on a foreign trip and the date for the same was fixed 20.4.13. On 19.4.13 morning the complainant inquired from call centre of OPs regarding the procedure for the activation of international roaming facility on his mobile, who instructed the complainant to contact their store i.e. OP3. Accordingly the complainant went to the office of OP3 and contacted Mr.Harjot, the concerned official, who asked the complainant to deposit Rs.5000/- towards international roaming charges alongwith proof of foreign tour and assured that roaming service will be activated after 14 days. The complainant was surprised to listen such words, as the flight of the complainant was fixed on 20.4.13 and the complainant requests the Ops for earlier activation of the International Roaming Service. After the repeated requests of the complainant Ops assured the complainant that the said service was activated within 24 hours. But when the complainant on 20.4.13 contacted the call centre of the Ops regarding the confirmation of activation of international roaming facility, then the call centre refused to activate the international roaming on his mobile due to non receipt of the request from the OP3. Thereafter the complainant contacted the call centre, who assured the complainant that international roaming on his mobile will be activated soon. But surprisingly the said facility was not activated till his return from the foreign tour. Complainant after return of the foreign tour contacted the Nodal Officer, who assured that the exact position will be informed by SMS. After lots of correspondence Ops activated the international roaming on 4.6.13 to 20.6.13 and charged Rs.150 towards roaming charges, but the complainant wanted this facility at the time of foreign trip. Further averred that when the complainant downloaded the statement of account for the period 1.3.13 to 31.7.13 in which credit balance has been shown Rs.4.23 whereas the amount of security of Rs.5000/- has duly been mentioned in the bill for the period 21.3.13 to 20.4.13.

8.                Refuting the allegations leveled by the complainant, Ld. counsel for OPs argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Further averred that in pursuance to the request of the complainant for activation of international roaming, as the complainant intended to go on a foreign tour and the same was activated on the mobile connection no.9814038140 by the OPs. Further averred that the representative of the company duly explained to the complainant that his international roaming will be activated within 48 hours and he has to update his handset to avail the international roaming services on his mobile number. Further averred that the jurisdiction of this Forum is barred as per section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act and the present complaint is only try able by the Arbitration Act only.

9.                We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant as well as defence taken by the OPs and have perused the entire record placed on file.

10.              It is evident that the complainant is subscriber of Vodafone no.9814038140. The complainant was intended to go on a foreign trip and date for the same was fixed 20.4.13. On 19.4.13 the complainant approached the Ops and requested them to activate the international roaming facility on his number and deposit Rs.5000/- towards international roaming charges alongwith all the requisite documents. But despite that international roaming facility was not provided to the complainant and rather the international roaming facility was activated on 4.6.13 and Ops charged Rs.150/- towards roaming charges. As such, the OPs are found to be deficient in providing services to the complainant inspite of the fact that the complainant contacted the call centre, who assured the complainant that international roaming on his mobile will be activated soon. But surprisingly the said facility was not activated till his return from the foreign tour. Complainant after return of the foreign tour contacted the Nodal Officer, who assured that the exact position will be informed by SMS. After lots of correspondences, Ops activated the international roaming on 4.6.13 to 20.6.13 and charged Rs.150 towards roaming charges, but the complainant wanted this facility at the time of foreign trip. Further when the complainant downloaded the statement of account for the period 1.3.13 to 31.7.13 in which credit balance has been shown Rs.4.23 whereas the amount of security of Rs.5000/- has duly been mentioned in the bill for the period 21.3.13 to 20.4.13.

11.              Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and Ops are directed to refund Rs.5000/- as well as to pay Rs.15,000/-(Fifteen thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                   (Babita)                          (S.P.Garg)                      (R.L.Ahuja)

                   Member                           Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:18.02.2015 

Hardeep Singh