Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/81/2014

D.Bharathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone South Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

23 Jan 2020

ORDER

                                                                             Date of filing      : 20.02.2014

                                                                               Date of disposal : 23.01.2020

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.81/2014

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2020

                                 

D. Bharathi,

W/o. Mr. Subba Reddiyar,

No.4/82, MA PO SI Street,

Santhoshapuram,

Chennai – 600 073.                                                        .. Complainant.

                                                                                                ..Versus..

 

The Manager – Customer Care,

Vodafone Mobile Services Limited,

Tower -1, 9^th Floor,

TVH Beliciaa Towers, Block – 94,

M.R.C. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

 

For the complainant                  : Party in person

Counsel for the opposite party : Mr. A. Palaniappan

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.97/- towards bonus recharge, Rs.6.30/- being the decreased amount in cheque and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony deficiency with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that she has availed pre-paid cell phone connection from the opposite party.  Since, the officials of the opposite party told the complainant that the pre-paid connection will be lesser expensive, the complainant paid the pre-paid connection charged by way of cheque sent through post office.   Every time, the postal department has not delivered the cheque in proper time and the complainant was compelled to pay the default charges. The opposite party also disconnect the cell phone connection.   Hence, the complainant opted for post-paid connection.   The complainant also sent the cheque for Rs.408/- on 15.06.2013 towards the post-paid charges which was not encashed by the opposite party.  Hence, the complainant paid the entire amount on 06.07.2013.  Thereafter, the opposite party converted the post-paid connection into pre-paid connection.  The complainant also recharged the cell phone for Rs.200/- on 09.07.2013 and thereafter, recharged with bonus for Rs.169/- on 11.07.2013.  While so on 15.06.2013, the opposite party encashed the cheque for Rs.408/- without any intimation and without any authority.   The opposite party also has not accounted for the amount.  Thereafter, during the month of October 2013, the opposite party sent a cheque for Rs.401.70 instead of Rs.408/- without stating any reason for reduction of Rs.6.30.   The complainant paid a sum of Rs.185/- on 22.12.2013 towards pre-paid recharge.  The opposite party also reduced 10 paise from the bonus recharge.  Thereby, the complainant paid Rs.97/- even after repeated request in person and through emails.  The opposite party has not come forward to pay the amount and settle the claim.   The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party states that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the dispute relating to telephone issues in the light of special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The opposite party states that the complainant is the customer of the opposite party and using the postpaid connection under mobile No.9884213523. The migration of his mobile connection from pre-paid to postpaid is done by her own volition and will.   The opposite party has always extended full support and service to its entire customers to their complete satisfaction.  The complainant of her own volition chose the mode of settling the bills by sending the cheques for the amount claimed by the opposite party and sent the same by courier.   The opposite party states that as and when if the same is received belatedly, the customer has to pay delay fees or penalty charges which will be generated automatically by the system in the next month bill.   If the complainant wants to change the mode of subscription for postpaid to prepaid, she has to settle the bill raised by the opposite party and then has to make a request before the next statement of bill is generated.    That information again was duly communicated to the complainant by the opposite party.   Despite that, the complainant has not preferred for any change of mode of payment for the bill before it was raised for the month of May 2013.   The complainant alleged that she has duly sent her payment for Rs.408/- by way of cheque dated:15.06.2013.   But the same has not been received in time by the opposite party hence, as per the prevailing conditions, the outgoing calls were barred.   Only thereafter, the complainant chosen to look into the delayed payment and found that the bill has not been settled within due date.  

3.     The opposite party states that despite repeatedly delayed payments by the complainant her mobile connection was not barred by the opposite party which is reflective of the party’s commitment to provide best service and support.   Due to the delayed payments, the complainant has chosen to change the connection from postpaid to prepaid.   But she was accordingly informed that only after completing the months billing cycle, she can opt for any change and she had been duly informed that only after 06.07.2013 she can opt for change of postpaid to prepaid.   On 06.07.2013, the complainant approached the Adyar Store of the opposite party and converted her mobile connection from post paid to prepaid.   This has been duly communicated to the complainant who had been informed that her request for migration has been received and duly executed and she can utilize the service from 09.07.2013 onwards.   Hence, the complainant has duly recharged her phone connection on 09.07.2013 and has thereafter been using the same.   As and when a bill claim is raised by the opposite parties, it includes the service tax amount and other statutory payments to the Government.  When there is a claim for refund of the same, then the opposite party will refund the amount which has been received by them.   But they cannot refund the statutory payments made to the respective Government departments.   In so far, the allegations concerned that bonus recharge of Rs.97/- has been paid by the complainant enabling her to pay only 10 paise per call from Vodafone to Vodafone.  The offer is automatically extended to the complainant after doing said bonus recharge as and when she makes a call from Vodafone to any Vodafone connection.   The opposite party states that the same bonus recharge of Rs.97/- has been utilized by a number of customers without any issues as to charges.   The allegations raised by the complainant are unsustainable. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  The opposite party after filing written version has not come forward to file proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version.  Hence, proof affidavit of the opposite party is closed on 24.11.2015.   Thereafter, the opposite party filed petition CMP No.229/2018 on 11.09.2018 to re-open the case for filing proof affidavit which was dismissed for default on 10.07.2019 since, notice not given to the complainant.  The opposite party has not taken any steps further for filing proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,10,103/- towards bonus recharge amount, withheld amount in cheque and compensation towards mental agony, deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The opposite party after filing written version has not come forward to file proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version.  Hence, proof affidavit of the opposite party is closed on 24.11.2015.   Thereafter, the opposite party filed petition CMP No.229/2018 on 11.09.2018 to re-open the case for filing proof affidavit which was dismissed for default on 10.07.2019 since, notice not given to the complainant.  The opposite party has not taken any steps further for filing proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version.  Thereby, there is no evidence on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant filed written arguments.   Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents of the complainant.   The complainant pleaded and contended that she has availed pre-paid cell phone connection from the opposite party.   Since, the officials of the opposite party told the complainant that the pre-paid connection will be less expensive.   The complainant also paid the pre-paid connection charges by way of cheque sent through post office.  Every time, the postal department has not delivered the cheque in proper time.  Thereby, the complainant was compelled to pay the default charges.   The opposite party also disconnected the cell phone connection caused great inconvenience.  Hence, the complainant opted for post-paid connection.   The complainant also sent the cheque for Rs.408/- 15.06.2013 towards the post paid charges which was not encashed by the opposite party.   Hence, the complainant paid the entire amount on 06.07.2013 as per Ex.A5.  Thereafter, the opposite party converted the post paid connection into prepaid connection.  The complainant also recharged the cell phone for Rs.200/- on 09.07.2013 and thereafter, recharged with bonus for Rs.169/- on 11.07.2013.  While so on 15.06.2013, the opposite party encashed the cheque for Rs.408/- without any intimation and without any authority.   The opposite party also has not accounted for the amount.  Thereafter, during the month of October 2013, the opposite party sent a cheque for Rs.401.70 instead of Rs.408/- as per Ex.A6 without stating any reason for reduction of Rs.6.30.   Thereby, the opposite party committed deficiency in service.   The complainant paid a sum of Rs.185/- on 22.12.2013 towards pre-paid recharge.  The opposite party also reduced 10 paise from the bonus recharge. Thereby, the complainant was constrained to pay a sum of Rs.97/- even after repeated request in person and through email as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.   The opposite party has not come forward to pay the amount and settle the claim.   Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case claiming compensation with the amount unauthorisedly reduced by the opposite party.  

7.     The opposite party after filing written version has not come forward to file proof affidavit to prove the contention raised in the written version.  Hence, proof affidavit of the opposite party is closed.   The petition to reopen the case for filing proof affidavit also dismissed for default.  Thereby on record, there is no proof affidavit of evidence on the part of the opposite party.   The contentions raised in the written version without any iota of proof is not acceptable.  The allegations of the opposite party that the complainant is not a Consumer and there is no deficiency in service also; is not acceptable because, the law is well settled that whether payment by the complainant was encashed by the opposite party without any intimation and sending a lesser amount constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.103.30/-  and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.103.30/- (Rupees One hundred and three and thirty paise only) and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 23^rd day of January 2020. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	28.12.2013	Copy of letter of the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A2	17.01.2014	Copy of letter of the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A3		Copy of sms from Vodafone to the complainant’s mobile phone
Ex.A4		Copy of call details of the complainant’s mobile from 22.12.2013 to 18.01.2014
Ex.A5		Copy of details regarding the encashment of the complainant’s  cheque in the opposite party’s bank
Ex.A6		Copy of details regarding the cheque in the pass book

 

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  No Proof Affidavit

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                                      PRESIDENT