Hon'ble Mr. Debangshu Bhattacherjee, Member
This is a complaint U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.One Sri Najrul Haque filed this case against the Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd, Cooch Behar Branch (Hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) alleging deficiency in services and others.
The complaint case, in brief, is as follows:
The petitioner purchased Vodaphone post paid Sim from the O.P. being Post paid Mobile No.9733850786 and paid Rs.300/-. O.P. issued Tax Invoice being No.20BNWB0680005327 dated 19.06.18 with condition for using 3 months, after that the connection would be changed from Post paid to Pre paid ( Annexure ‘A’).
The petitioner paid the last postpaid bill on 17.09.18. The O.P. promised to change the connection tariff from Postpaid to Prepaid which is fixed on 2nd October (Annexure ‘B’).
On 02.10.18 staff of the O.P. called the petitioner through phone regarding change of post paid to pre paid. On 03.10.18 O.P. received Rs.90/- and Rs.250/- for the last time recharge and O.P. said that after discontinuance of post paid service the prepaid connection would automatically start. The case of the complainant is that from 03.10.18 at 2.27 P.M. to 05.10.18 at 5.59 P.M. no service connection was started by the O.P. The complainant also stated that the connection of post paid was already stopped on 02.10.18 at 3 P.M. (Annexure ‘C’).
That after the incident the petitioner went to the Office of the O.P. many times. Thereafter on 04.10.18 petitioner filed the written complaint before the O.P. and ultimately the prepaid connection started on 05.10.18 at 6.00 P.M. That due to negligence of the O.P., petitioner could not use prepaid connection from 03.10.18 to 05.10.18 at 5.59 P.M. Due to such activity of the O.Ps the Complainant suffered loss and also suffered mental pain and agony and he is harassed by the O.P. Accordingly, the Complainant filed this case for proper reliefs.
On perusal of the record it is found that on 28.03.19 O.P. filed a petition praying for vacating ex parte order dated 13.01.19 along with Agent-nama and W/V. The petition filed by the O.P. praying for vacating ex parte order was allowed subject to payment of cost Rs.500/-. After that several opportunities were given to the O.P. for payment of cost but no such cost was paid and none appeared for O.P. On dated 03.09.19 the Forum decided to hear the case ex parte against the O.P.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s.2 (1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant case?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
Evidently, the Complainant is a bonafide customer of the O.P. mobile company. Thus, the relation between the O.Ps with the Complainant established from the record. Hence, the Complainant is the Consumer of the O.P.
Point No.2.
This is an application under Section 12 of CP Act, 1986 filed by Najrul Haque that the petitioner is residing in the above address within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum that the Office of the O.P. is situated in the address within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for consideration of discussion as they are related to each other.
The Complainant himself stated in the complaint petition that on 03.10.18 he deposited Rs.90/- and Rs.250/- for first time recharge and shifted the mobile connection from post paid to pre paid connection. According to the Annexure- C submitted by the Complainant, the time of depositing the amount was 02.27.51 P.M. dated 03.10.18 and on 05.10.18 at 5.59 P.M the mobile service connection of the Complainant converted to post paid to pre paid connection. If we go through the record, we can see that the entire process took 51 Hours time for converting a post paid Mobile connection to a pre paid Mobile connection.
During the interchange of post paid connection to pre paid Mobile connection of the Complainant several things are visualized i.e. “CRS was done on 03.10.18 at 2.45 P.M.” and “No network” or the number is invalid etc.
The change over in system i.e. from Post paid to pre paid, needs some technical changes in the internal system which is, undoubtedly, not within the control of the O.P. It’s not unlikely that sometimes, it may get delayed for sometime due to some technical problem or something related with the system. Here in this case, however, the fact is that there was some delay in getting effect from Post paid to Pre Paid connection.
So, in this context, we are to see if there was any deliberate delay or negligence on the part of the O.P. in getting the system changed over. But, nothing has been produced on behalf of the Complainant that O.P. did not take any initiative nor did he take any step after getting money from him to initiate for the desired change. Unless any negligence on the part of the O.P. is proved, how can the O.P.be blamed or held negligent for the delayed connection. So, the allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. doesn’t arise.
That being so, the instant complaint stands liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
It is Ordered
That the present Case No. CC/96/2018 be and the same is dismissed Ex parte against the O.P. There is no order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule. The copy of the Final Order is also available at www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
