BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.13 of 2020
Date of Instt. 10.01.2020 Date of Decision: 02.03.2021
Satish Kumar, (Age:59 years) 977, Rajput Nagar, Model House, Jalandhar, Punjab-144003.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Vodafone Mini Store, Jain Sanjog Pahariya Telecom, Opp shri Balmiki Mandir, Adda Basti Sheikh, Basti Sheikh Road, Jalandhar, Punjab-144002
2. Vodafone Idea Limited, C 105, Industrial Area, Phase VII Mohali, Punjab-160055.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Prince Taneja, Auth. Rep. of the Complainant.
OP No.1 exparte.
Sh. Vishal Gupta, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.2.
Order
Kuljit Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he had been using Vodafone Postpaid number 7837867855 for around past 3 years. On 10th October, 2019, he wished to get this number migrated into a prepaid one and visited the store premises of the OP No.1 and paid all outstanding dues/bills and produced ID proofs for verification, also as demanded by the store agent. The agent had assured him that the number would be successfully migrated into prepaid within next 7 days as all the required formalities had been complied with. After the said 7 days, he enquired about the migration status from Vodafone customer care executive, who confirmed that no such request for migration of the said postpaid number into prepaid had ever been made at any store, resulting in deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. It also shows that the OP No.1 has been misguiding and cheating with the customers, amounting to unfair trade practice as well. On the same day, the complainant raised a complaint with the National Consumer Helpline and approached Vodafone Appellate Authority at the OP No.2 via email and apprised them of such cheating by the OP No.1. Many emails had been exchanged thereafter, but in reply no satisfactory response has ever been received from the OP No.2 even in more than 2 months. Even after knowing about the way the OP No.1 has cheated and instead of taking a strict action against the store, the OP No.2 has just ignored the fact and is now forcing that he have to make additional payment to bill, which had actually accrued due to the OP No.1 misguiding/cheating followed by the OPs No.2 own in action/negligence. It would not be wrong to say that the existence of OP No.2 has become extremely irrelevant and it has totally failed to fulfill and justify its purpose of existence. The conduct of the OP No.2 is very questionable as it is still unable to address the issue. The complainant also raised a complaint with the Department of Telecommunications, TRAI at Public Grievances Portal, i.e. PGPORTAL, but there too, instead of admitting its wrongdoings, the OP has been forcing him to pay the said bill, which did not accrue on his part. Hence no satisfactory response has been received even after two months, in the very first complaint to the OP No.2 and on the PGPORTAL as well, he had made it clear that he would not be going to pay any bill for OPs default, but all went vain as no solution is insight. The complainant again approached the NCH and in response from the OP No.2, he was advised to again visit the store the store of OP No.1 and get the number migrated, but instead of admitting his deliberate cheating/misguiding, the OP No.1 began to raise baseless excuses that the delay was caused due to a back end system error, adding that the number can only be migrated with a fresh request for which he have to clear the bill amount (which had actually accrued due to the OP No.1 own misguiding and cheating followed by the OP No.2 inaction/negligence and not any way on his part), including further one week’s advance payment, and also he has to get ID verification done once again. Since he had already cleared all dues on his part including one week’s advance as demanded and had already gone through ID verification on 10th October itself, the company has no answer about the process initiated earlier. Finally, he was advised by the NCH to file consumer complaint. It is very material to mention here that the OP is insisting him to pay the bill and outgoing services have been suspended on his number since 27th December, 2019 and now incoming services have also been disrupted since 07 January, 2020. The OP is forcing him to pay for its own mismanagement, again resulting unfair trade practice on its part and accordingly, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but the OP No.1 despite service failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas the OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that at the outset, it is stated that the present complaint is baseless and has been formulated on wrong and misleading facts and is devoid of any merits whatsoever. Each and every allegation made against the answering OP shall be deemed to be denied unless and until the same is specifically admitted herein in the present reply. That the present complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant is himself at fault as he has never filled the Postpaid to Prepaid migration form and also failed to pay the outstanding bills. It is further alleged that the complainant has the least concern for the sanctity and dignity of the judicial process and further alleged that the compensation as sought by the complainant is not only exorbitant but an attempt by him to blow the issue out of proportion. That the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that as per the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as “General Manager, Telecom Versus M. Krishnan and ors, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. It is further alleged that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant himself is at fault as he has filed to clear his dues and make a formal request for his grievance with the answering OP company and further allege that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs. On merits, the factum in regard to availing the service of postpaid number of Vodafone company by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.2 filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective version, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments from Auth. Representative of the complainant as well as counsel for the OP No.2 and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the complainant, very carefully.
6. In nutshell, the case of the complainant is only that he had been using post paid number of Vodafone Company since three years and he wished to get this number migrated into a prepaid and visited the office of Vodafone and fulfilled all the formalities, but after that the company failed to migrate his connection from post paid to prepaid and regarding this the complainant filed many complaints/emails and lastly the complainant filed the present complaint.
7. On the other hand, the counsel for the OP No.2 filed reply, wherein submitted that the complainant is himself at fault as he has never filled the Postpaid to Prepaid migration form and also failed to pay the outstanding bills. The current outstanding on the said number is Rs.449.02/-. Due to failure on the part of the complainant to make the payment, the OP disconnected the number after giving enough opportunities to the complainant to clear the outstanding dues.
8. To prove his case, the complainant brought on the file Bill/dues cleared on 10 October, 2019 Ex.C-1, Complaint to National Consumer Helpline Ex.C-2, Emails/Reminders Ex.C-3, Replies received for emails Ex.C-4, PGPORTAL complaint status Ex.C-5 and another complaint with National Consumer Helpline Ex.C-6.
9. On the other hand, the OPs produced on the file Migration Form Ex.OP-2/1, Bill Ex.OP-2/2 and Relevant extract of the Indian Telegraph Rules Ex.OP2/3.
10. After considering the overall facts and plea of both the parties, it is established on the file that the complainant is at fault as he has never filled the Postpaid to Prepaid migration form and also the complainant has failed to bring on the file the migration form, in the absence of this migration, how we can understand that the complainant has given a request for migration his connection and also the complainant failed to pay the outstanding bills. It is general rule that if any person wants to migrate his connection from Postpaid to Prepaid, then firstly he clear his all dues. Apart from that, the OPs brought on the file document Ex.OP-2/3 which is relevant extract of the Indian Telegraph Rules, which is as under:-
“Default of Payment:- If, on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules, of bills for charges in respect of calls (Local and Trunk) of phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are not duly paid by him, any telephone or telephones or the telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice.”
So, from the overall discussion, we came to conclusion that there are no merits in the case of the complainant and the same is 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.
11. 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
02.03.2021 Member President
