Delhi

East Delhi

CC/401/2014

MANOJ KR - Complainant(s)

Versus

VODAFONE MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.         401 /2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution      –          19/05/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 28/08/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order         -                29/08/2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, adult   

L-2, Gali. No. 3, Behari Colony   

Shahdara, Delhi 110032…………………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd     

C-48, Okhala Industrial Area, PH. II

New Delhi 110020.……………………….………………………….Opponent

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                    

                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant had Vodafone mobile connection since long and had lost his mobile in 2011, so purchased another SIM of Vodafone. It was stated that Vodafone Mobile outlet had offered a scheme if complainant had five Vodafone mobile, then all their local phone calls would be free, but he had only one so he purchased one more “Pre-paid” Vodafone number as 7838323666 and surrendered his TATA phone presuming his pre paid Vodafone number would be free and be paying his old number as 7838070116, so he was making calls on Pre paid connection.

He received mobile bill which was not free, so he called at customer care of Vodafone and stated that his was made ‘Free’ from 05/08/2013. But complainant received his monthly bill of Rs 2239/- which he did not pay and subsequently he did not pay next month’s bill, so his mobile connection no. 7838070116 was discontinued. Thereafter, he lodged complaint on Consumer Help line no. 1800114000 and was told to get reply in one month, but did not get any reply and later he filed this complaint claiming immediate revival of his mobile number 7838070116 with compensation from Aug 2013 till date and refund of all the charges paid to Vodafone.  

 

OP submitted written statement denying all the allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services. It was stated that complainant had not paid his monthly bills issued from OP office. The annexed zerox of monthly bills itself showed that his connection was post paid not a free connection as claimed. His mobile connection was discontinued in accordance to Rule 443 of The Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. Complainant did not pay outstanding bill of Rs 938/- in 90 days, so connection was discontinued. Further It was stated that complainant had raised deficiency in service disputes in mobile connectivity; such issues were again out of preview of this Forum as per the Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

 

OP had referred the citation of Hon. Supreme Court in “General Manager, Telecom vs M Krishnan & others, 2009 CPJ 1062 where it was laid down regarding Sec. 7B of Indian Telegraph Act where telephone bill and service issues were present, remedy under The Consumer Protection Act was barred. Similar law was laid down in “Prakash Verma vs Idea Cellular Ltd.” by NCDRC in RP 1703/2010 where complaint was dismissed on such issues. OP stated that complainant applied for a post paid connection on 27/12/2011 after being satisfied and signed the agreement statement. After that OP issued post paid connection vide no. 7838070116 on 27/12/2011 ( Ex. OP R 1/1).

 

The complainant later asked for pre paid connection on 01/06/2012 and as per agreement, OP issued Pre paid SIM connection vide mobile no. 7838323666 (Ex. OP R1/2). OP stated that as per Rule 443 of the Indian Telephone Rules, 1951, connection was disconnected for nonpayment of bills. Hence, it was prayed that there was no deficiency in the services of OP nor any unfair trade practice was adopted against the complainant. So this complaint may be dismissed. 

Complainant filed his rejoinder with evidence on affidavit and affirmed on oath that all facts in his complaint were correct and true. Complainant had also submitted one bill details for mobile no. 7838070116 showing payment details from 2012 to Jan 2014.

 

OP also submitted their evidence on affidavit through Md. Shikha Sharma, working as Dy Manager Legal with OP had affirmed that all contents as OP exhibits were on record and facts stated their written statement and in evidences were correct and true in reference to the judgments of Apex court and were never deficient in their services. OP also submitted application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for the dismissal of complaint in reference of Statutory Bar under Section 7B of The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and written arguments.  Hence, present complaint may be dismissed. 

 

For arguments, number of opportunity were given to complainant through notices, but did not put his appearance or submitted his written arguments from 02/12/2016, 13/04/2017 and  even on the date of arguments, he did not put his appearance. Arguments were heard from OP counsel, file perused and order was reserved. 

By going through all the facts and evidences on record, we have gone through Apex Court’s Judgment as General Manager Telecome vs M Krishana, decided on dated 01/09/2016. It was  laid down that Forums has no jurisdiction to adjudicate complaint of telecom sector. We have also gone through case titled as Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs Ajay Agarwal where disputes pertaining to telegraph Authorities, the complaint was dismissed.

 

So we come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merits and deserve to be dismissed, so dismissed without cost. 

The copy of order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari Member                                                                        Shri Sukhdev Singh President