Punjab

Sangrur

CC/400/2017

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ravi Jindal

15 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    400

                                                Instituted on:      09.08.2017

                                                Decided on:       15.01.2018

 

Mandeep Singh aged 29 years son of Shri Surinder Singh, resident of Village Saron, Tehsil & Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-8, Mohali-160071 through its MD.

2.             Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Mini Store, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Incharge.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant    :       In peerson.

For OP No. 1             :       Shri Ramandeep, Advocate.

For OP No.2              :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Mandeep Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is working as a Clerk with Shri Gagandeep Bhagria, Advocate Sangrur and he got issued post paid mobile connection from the OPs bearing number 9646879779 in his name and gave the same to the complainant and the complainant is using the mobile in question.  The grievance of the complainant is that he is aggrieved on receiving the bill number 181PB07700607987 dated 20.7.2017 for Rs.7661.34, wherein the usage charges are shown to be Rs.6000/- plus taxes, whereas the complainant never used the mobile services to this extent.  After receipt of the bill, the complainant approached the OPs to know about the details of the usage, the OPs told the complainant that the said amount is on account of ISD calls, whereas no ISD facility was ever provided to the complainant or his employer nor the complainant made any such calls.  Though the complainant approached the Ops so many times for withdrawal of the bill amount, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the bill amount of Rs.6000/- plus taxes and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded against exprte.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint, that the complainant at his own fut. It is stated that the complainant made ISD calls from the mobile number and the bill amounting to Rs.6000/- plus charges has been rightly charged and the complainant was sent a SMS on 9.7.2017, wherein he was apprised about the usage of Rs.2000/- beyond his limit. It is further averred that the complainant made the ISD calls at Portsmouth/Southampton near UK on  various occasions as mentioned in the reply, as such, the demand is said to be genuine one.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1 affidavit along with Annexure R-1 to R-3 and   closed evidence.

 

 5.            We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is using the mobile number in question.  In the present case, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant never used the ISD facility nor the same was ever provided to the complainant on his mobile number nor the complainant ever sought the same, as such the question of using of the ISD facility does not arise at all.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the amount of Rs.6000/- has been rightly charged from the complainant as he used the ISD facility on various occasion as detailed in the written reply, as well as mentioned in the Annexure R-1 i.e. on 9.7.2017. A bare perusal of it shows that the complainant allegedly made three calls for 20 minutes each on 9.7.2017, for which the Op has charged an amount of Rs.2000/- per call, but we are unable to accept such a  contention of the OPs that an amount of Rs.2000/- can be charged for a 20 minute call, more so when the OPs have miserably failed to provide any documentary evidence that the complainant was provided with ISD facility, as the complainant has denied that he never availed/used such ISD facility to make international calls.  Accordingly, we feel that this demand of Rs.6000/- seems not to be genuine one as charged by the Ops on account of ISD calls.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to withdraw the disputed bill dated 21.7.2017 for Rs.7661.34. However, it is made clear that the OPs are at liberty to charge the amount of local calls as per the rules. We further direct Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses. A   copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                January 15, 2018.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                       

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member