Delhi

East Delhi

CC/510/2015

PRADEEP KR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VODAFONE MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

03 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 510/15

 

Shri Pradip Kumar Ray

S/o Shri Ramanand Ray

R/o H. No. A-134, G.D. Colony

Mayur Vihar Phase – III

Delhi – 110 096                                                                              ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited

C-48, Okhla Industrial Area

Phase – II, New Delhi – 110 020

 

2. Vodafone Store

E-356, Nirman Vihar, Vikas Marg

Opposite V3S Mall, Delhi – 110 097                                            ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 20.08.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 03.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 20.12.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Pradip Kumar Ray has invoked the jurisdiction of this forum against Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd. (OP-1) and Vodafone Store (OP-2).

2.        Facts in brief are that the complainant is consumer of OP vide relationship No. 1/19167802 with Vodafone no. 9811151732.  On 07.05.2015, the complainant visited OP-2 after he received SMS regarding the internet usage on the above-mentioned number.   The internet services were deactivated by the executive of OP-2 on the request of the complainant.  Again on 12.05.2015, the complainant visited OP-2, where the bill with respect to the said number was not generated.  It was only on 13.05.2015, a total bill of Rs. 9944.55/- was generated with Rs. 7699/- for internet usage, Rs. 394/- as value added services.  The complainant asked for the rectification of bill through email dated 13.05.2015, 18.05.2015, but his grievance was not addressed.  Finally, on 30.05.2015, the outgoing call services of the complainant were terminated without any notice.  Despite several complaints and legal notice dated 01.06.2015, OP did not reinstate the connection of the complainant.  On 03.07.2015, by a telephonic call, the complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 3,500/- for resuming services.  It was further stated that infact the actual monthly charges were Rs. 565/-, call charges were Rs. 137/- and SMS charges were Rs. 12.80. Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to resume services of the mobile no. 9811151732, issue revised bill instead of bill dated 11.05.2015, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.

            Bill dated 11.05.2015 for Rs. 9897.52/- alongwith usage details, email dated 11.05.2015 to OP and legal notice to OPs alongwith postal receipts are annexed with the complaint.

3.  Notice of the complaint was served upon OPs.  Thereafter, the complainant was directed to file an affidavit pertaining to the fact that the OP had waived Rs. 8,665/- on 24.07.2015 as against the bill of         Rs. 10,993.22/-, which was duly complied by the complainant.

WS was filed by OP, where the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint in this forum under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 was raised.  It was submitted that every bill was issued on the basis of actual usage and the disconnection of the complainant’s number was due to non-payment.  It was further submitted that the complainant was bound by the terms and conditions as he had signed customer agreement form.  OP-1 had waived an amount of Rs. 8,665/- in bill dated 11.08.2015, well before the filing of the present complaint.  SMS alert was sent by OP for bill outstanding  in the name of the complainant and rest of the contents of the complaint were denied.

POA (Annex. R/1), customer agreement form (Annex.R/2), bill dated 11.05.2015 alongwith usage details (Annex.R/3), itemized details (Annex.R/4), statement of account of the complainant (Annex.R/5), bill dated 11.08.2015 alongwith usage details was annexed as Annex. R/6.

4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties, wherein the complainant examined himself and deposed on oath the contents of the complaint.  The complainant relied upon Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW5 already annexed with the complaint. 

OP examined Ms. Shikha Sharma, Dy. Manager of OP, reliance was placed on documents such as Ex.1/1 to Ex.1/6, which were annexed with the WS.

5. We have heard the counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record.  As far as preliminary objection that the jurisdiction of this forum was barred by Section 7B of Indian Telegraph, it has been decided by National Commission in Bharti Hexacom Ltd. Vs. Komal Prakash, RP No. 1228 of 2013, wherein it was held that “the powers of a “Telegraph Authority” are now not vested in the private telecom service providers as is the case here, and also in the BSNL, Section 7B of the said Act will have no application and, therefore, the Forum constituted under The CPA, 1986 are  competent to entertain the disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers”.  Similar view was taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Vivek Bhardwaj Vs. Vodafone Essar East Ltd. & 3 Ors. F.A. No. 193/2014.  Thus, this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the consumer of OP.  It is also admitted that the bill of Rs. 9944.55/- was raised in the account of the complainant.  It is further admitted fact that an amount of           Rs. 8,665/- had been waived off by the OP.  Perusal of Ex.RW1/6 i.e. bill dated 11.08.2015 reveals that the said amount was waived /adjusted by OP against total dues of Rs. 10,993.22/-.  The said adjustment, which as stated by the OP being a goodwill gesture was done only after the filing of present complaint.  It is also admitted that the services of the complainant were disconnected due to nonpayment of bill, but on the date of filing, the connection was active/working. 

            If the connection was active, then the Clause A of prayer clause becomes infructous, as far as Clause B is concerned, a revised bill dated 11.05.2015 has been issued to the complainant, where above mentioned amount was adjusted.  As far as Clause C of the complaint is concerned, the complainant had to undergo mental tension when he received escalated bill for the services, he had not used.  Therefore, OP is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the receipt of order. 

If the said orders are not complied within the stipulated period, the company have to pay the total amount of Rs. 3,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.                

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President