BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.30 of 2015

Date of Instt. 30.01.2015

Date of Decision :26.03.2015

Damanjeet Singh aged about 25 years son of Avtar Singh R/o ED-20, Dhan Mohallan, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Gupta Chamber, Ground Floor, Opp.NRI Sabha, Civil Line, Jalandhar-144001 through its Director/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite party

Complaint under section 1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Opposite party exparte.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant has pre-paid mobile connection No.9888758080 issued by opposite party. On 23.1.2015 the complainant requested the opposite party to convert the above said mobile number from pre-paid to post-paid which the opposite party converted to post-paid after two hours on same day. On 24.1.2015 the opposite party made request for verification at complainant's house which was found positive in all respect. On 25.1.2015, the opposite party barred outgoing calls of complainant's mobile phone without any notice & intimation. When the complainant enquired from customer care centre of opposite party for the close of outgoing calls, they told the complainant that the verification was negative, however the outgoing call can be activated after half hours, if all proofs be re-submitted. The complainant told the customer care centre that all the necessary proofs had already been submitted with opposite party, so, the outgoing call should had not been closed but they did not consider the request of the complainant. The complainant further requested the customer care centre of opposite party, if the outgoing call is not activated today on 25.1.2015, tomorrow is holiday being 26 January Republic Day, so the complainant would suffer irreparable loss but they neither activated the outgoing call nor considered the request of the complainant. On 27.1.2015 the complainant personally visited the opposite party and asked for reason for closing the outgoing call. The opposite party told the complainant, although the documents and proofs submitted by complainant were found OK and the verification made was positive but due to outstanding pending amount of Rs.286/- towards complainant, the outgoing was barred on 25.1.2015. The complainant is totally unaware of the outstanding of Rs.286/- as raised by opposite party. In this regard neither any demand notice nor any intimation for the recovery of said long outstanding pending amount was given to complainant. The complainant requested the opposite party many times to activate the outgoing call but despite several visits and so many requests made by complainant to opposite party, the opposite party has not activated the outgoing call of complainants' mobile phone No.9888758080. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for compensation.

2. Upon notice opposite party did not appear and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of document Ex.C1 and closed evidence.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person.

5. Complainant contended that earlier he was having pre-paid mobile connection of opposite party but on his request the same was converted to post-paid on 23.1.2015. He further contended that opposite party made necessary verification at his house but on 25.1.2015 the opposite party barred the outgoing calls of the complainant without any notice and intimation. He further contended that on enquiry it was disclosed that due to outstanding amount of Rs.286/-, the outgoing calls were barred on 25.1.2015. He further contended that complainant never received any demand notice or intimation regarding outstanding amount of Rs.286/- and barring outgoing calls of the complainant without any notice constitute deficiency in service. At the time of arguments, the complainant stated at bar that now outgoing calls have been started and he has deposited the alleged outstanding amount. In support of his version, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CA. The opposite party has not come present to contest the version of the complainant. So without giving any notice or intimation and without issuing any demand notice regarding outstanding amount barring of outgoing calls constitute deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. The opposite party has not come present, so it appears that it has nothing to say in the matter. We do not find any convincing reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant which is supported by an affidavit.

6. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

26.03.2015 Member Member President