THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 596 of 2014
Date of Institution : 17.11.2014
Date of Decision : 8.10.2015
Mandeep Singh Prop./Director Akal Incorporation 109 FF City Centre, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Vodafone South Limited, C-131, Industrial Area Phase 8, Mohali
Vodafone Store, Ist Floor, opposite ENT Hospital, Majitha Road, Amritsar
Vodafone Store, Katra Sher Singh, Opposite Subash Juice Bar, Amritsar
....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh.Pardeep Mahajan,Advocate
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh.K.K.Thakur,Advocate
For opposite parties No.2 & 3 : Ex-parte
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Mandeep Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he was holder of Tata Dokomo SIM of TataTelecom Ltd having No. 9417068507. The complainant ported this number to the opposite party which was started by the opposite parties and the bill was issued to the complainant. Complainant has alleged tha opposite party stopped the services of incoming and outgoing calls on this number w.e.f 16.10.2014. On enquiry it was revealed that a sum of Rs. 960/- was due payable by the complainant to the previous company and as such services have been suspended. Thereafter the complainant paid the dues of the previous company vide receipt No. 68471979 dated 21.10.2014 and said dues were cleared by the complainant regarding connection No. 9216200839 and 9417068507. Thereafter the complainant requested to start the services but it was informed vide e-mail datd 31.10.2014 that current bill of Rs. 1631/- is outstanding which was to be paid before 19.10.2014 and as such the services cannot be activated. Thereafter the complainant cleared the bill by depositing Rs. 1650/- on 3.11.2014 and requested the opposite party for activation of his mobile connection but till date the opposite party has not activated the services of the mobile number of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to activate the connection of the complainant immediately. Opposite party be also directed to pay Rs. 10000/- per day for the loss of business from 3.11.2014 till the date of activation. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant has after porting out from Tata Tele Services, had taken the mobile connection off the Vodafone South Ltd. The said mobile connection bearing No. 9417068507 got ported in the system of the opposite party on 27.8.2014. The mobile outgoing services of the complainant were barred due to the reason of non payment of bills amounting to Rs. 960/- payable by the complainant to Tata Tele Services Pvt.Ltd.. So the opposite party temporarily suspended the outgoing services of the mobile connection of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant had failed to clear the outstanding dues which was pending to be paid to the donor mobile telecom company i.e. Tata Tele Services Ltd which is in total contradiction to the guidelines, rules and regulations by the TRAI . Under the said guidelines it has been clearly stated that in case the complainant fails to clear the outstanding dues, the mobile services will remain suspended till the previous outstanding dues were not cleared. The complainant had failed to clear the outstanding dues towards the donor operator and had filed the present complaint . The opposite party had generated computerized bill for the month of September 2014 which the complainant had failed to clear before the due date which had resulted into the suspension of the mobile connection of the complainant . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Initially Sh.B.S. Rajput Advocate apeared on 28.1.2005 and filed memo of appearance and the case was adjourned for filing written version. But later on none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 on 20.3.2015 and opposite party No.2 was also proceeded against ex-parte. Opposite party No.3 did not appear despite proper service, as such it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order datd 10.3.2015.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Ashutosh Kalia ,Sr.Manager Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant was holder of Tata Dokomo SIM of TataTelecom Ltd having No. 9417068507. The complainant ported this number to the opposite party which was started by the opposite party and the bill was being issued by the opposite party to the complainant. However, opposite party stopped the services of incoming and outgoing calls on this number w.e.f 16.10.2014. On enquiry it was revealed that a sum of Rs. 960/- was due payable by the complainant to the previous company i.e. Tata Telecom Ltd., as such services have been suspended. Thereafter the complainant paid the dues of the previous company vide receipt dated 21.10.2014 Ex.C-6 and the receipt was submitted at the office of opposite party No.2 with the request to start the services of mobile Phone No. 9417068507 . Bu the complainant was informed vide e-mail dated 31.10.2014 that current bill of Rs. 1631/- is outstanding which was to be paid before 19.10.2014, as such the services cannot be activated. Thereafter the complainant cleared the bill by depositing Rs. 1650/- on 3.11.2014 vide receipt Ex.C-7 and requested the opposite party to activate the aforesaid mobile phone, but the opposite party has not activated the services of the mobile number of the complainant and the complainant has been suffering daily loss to the tune of Rs. 10000/- per day in his business. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of opposite party No.1 is that complainant has after porting out from Tata Tele Services, had taken the mobile connection off the Vodafone South Ltd. The said mobile connection bearing No. 9417068507 got ported in the system of the opposite party on 27.8.2014. The mobile outgoing services of the complainant were barred due to the reason of non payment of bills amounting to Rs. 960/- payable by the complainant to Tata Tele Services Pvt.Ltd.. So the opposite party temporarily suspended the outgoing services of the mobile connection of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant had failed to clear the outstanding dues payable to opposite party which generated computerized bill for the month of September 2014 which the complainant had failed to clear before the due date.Non payment of the outstanding dues had resulted into suspension of the mobile connection of the complainant. The said bill is Ex.OP1/3 which was due payable by 19.10.2014 , but the complainant did not make the payment of this bill and the bill for October 2014 Ex.OP1/4 was generated to the complainant which included the amount of the previous bill and the complainant made the payment of Rs. 1650/- on 3.11.2014 vide receipt Ex.C-7 , whereas the amount payable was Rs. 2033.33 paise leaving balance of about Rs. 400/- and the complainant paid this amount on 19.11.2014 and the mobile connection of the complainant was activated by the opposite party on 14.11.2014. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party rather the complainant was defaulter in payment of the amount of the bills to the opposite paty as well as to the previous company Tata Tele Services Ltd.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant had earlier mobile connection bearing No. 9417068507 of Tata Dokomo SIM of Tata Tele Services Ltd. The complainant got ported this number to the opposite party and the opposite party started this connection and the complainant was availing the services of the opposite party. However, the opposite party was informed that the payment of bill amounting to Rs. 960/- was due payable by the complainant to the previous company i.e. Tata Tele Services Ltd. Resultantly as per guidelines , rules and regulations issued by TRAI, the opposite parties suspended the outgoing services on the mobile connection of the complainant and the complainant was informed accordingly. The complainant paid this amount to the previous company Tata Tele Services Ltd vide receipt dated 21.10.2014 Ex.C-6 but the complainant has also not paid the amount of the bills issued by the opposite party i.e. bill of September 2014 issued on 1.10.2014 Ex.OP1/3 as amount of Rs. 1631/- was payable by the complainant as outstanding dues of bill,s to the opposite party. The said bill was payable upto 19.10.2014 but the complainant did not pay this amount to the opposite party. As such the services of the mobile connection of the complainant could not be restored by the opposite party due to non payment of outstanding amount. The complainant was then issued bill dated 1.11.2014 Ex.OP1/4 for a sum of Rs. 2033.33 paise which included the previous balance amount of Rs. 1631/- and this amount was payable immediately . But the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1650/- only with the opposite party vide receipt Ex.C-7 on 13.11.2014 leaving balance of about Rs. 400/-. As such the services on the mobile connection of the complainant were not reactivated by the opposite party . As per the record Annexure R-3, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 400/- on 19.11.2014 clearing the balance amount payable by the complainant to the opposite party. However, as a goodwill gesture the opposite party restored/reactivated the services on the mobile connection of the complainant on 14.11.2014 and this fact is not denied by the complainant. So it was the complainant who was at fault in not depositing the amount of the bills due payable by the complainant to the opposite party regarding the services availed by the complainant on the mobile connection in question. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
10. Consequently we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
8.10.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member
