Vodafone SR South Limited, Near KBN Hospital, Gulbarga V/S Sri. K.Srinivas Gattu S/o. Late Thimayya - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/09/51

Sri. K.Srinivas Gattu S/o. Late Thimayya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone SR South Limited, Near KBN Hospital, Gulbarga - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. C.Kesava Rao

13 Nov 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/51

Sri. K.Srinivas Gattu S/o. Late Thimayya						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Vodafone SR South Limited, Near KBN Hospital, Gulbarga The Vodafone Customer Care Center(Vodafone Store)						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant K. Srinivas Gattu against the Opposites 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 20,000/- with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he is the purchaser of Vodafone Mobile Phone bearing No. 9916147551 of opposites. On 20-05-09 he received message from opposites VX-VODAFONE-22 by activating the scheme called as VX-VODAFONE-22 and deducted an amount of Rs. 22/- from his account of the currency without informing him and without getting his consent and on 25-05-09 he received message from opposites regarding crediting of the said amount of Rs. 22/- to his account on the complaint made by him and thereafter once again on 05-06-09 he received one more message from the opposites for deducting the amount of Rs. 22/- towards the said scheme as monthly rental for bonus card facility, thereafter the said amount was credited to his account on 09-06-02 on the basis of the second complaint filed by him, such act of opposites 1 & 2 is of adopting unfair trade practice and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services and thereby he filed this complaint against opposites for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite Parties 1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate filed their detail written version by denying the allegations made by the complainant and prayed for to dismiss the complaint with cost of Rs. 10,000/- 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:- 1. Whether the complainant proves that, on 20-05-09 he received message in his Vodafone Mobile from opposites VX-VODAFONE-22 by activating the scheme known as VX-VODAFONE-22 and deducted subscription of Rs. 22/- in the available currency of the said phone without prior intimation and without his consent and on 25-05-09, he received another message from the opposites regarding the crediting of the said amount of Rs. 22/- to his account on the basis of complaint made by him and thereafter again on 05-06-09 he received one more message in his phone from the opposites regarding the deduction of the amount of Rs. 22/- towards the said scheme as monthly rental for bonus card facility thereafter the said amount was credited to his account on the basis of the complaint filed by him on 09-06-09 and thereby opposites 1 & 2 have adopted unfair trade practice and thereby both of them are found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as stated in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3, Ex.P-3(1) to Ex.P-3(4) are marked. Affidavit-evidence of the Authorized representative and legal head of Karnataka Vodafone was filed he was noted as RW-1. No documents filed and marked. 7. Ex.P-1 the copy of the complaint made by this complainant dt. 22-05-09 before opposites 1 & 2 clearly shows that the complainant requested the opposites not to deduct the amount of Rs. 22/-, as per the message dt. 21-05-09 towards VX-VODAFONE-22 Scheme and as Ex.P-2(1) and Ex.P-2(2) postal acknowledgement shows that the opposites have received the complainant Ex.P-1, but no response shown in writing to the complaint Ex.P-1. Ex.P-3 is the strong protest complainant dt. 05-06-09 to the opposites 1 & 2 regarding the deduction of the amount once again on 05-06-09 without prior intimation and without his consent. Ex.P-3(3) and Ex.P-3(4) are postal acknowledgements for having receipt of Ex.P-3. It appears from the above said facts that the opposites have re-credited the amount of Rs. 22/- to the account of complainant, after strong protest made by him vide Ex.P-3. There are no documentary evidences to over look the documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3, Ex.P-3(3) & Ex.P-3(4), simply the officers of opposites filed affidavit-evidences without acceptable explanation for such deduction, as per the message given by them to the complainant dt. 22-05-09 and 05-06-09 is nothing but that they have adopted un-trade practice by charging their customers in the names of different schemes without their consent and without prior intimation, accordingly these opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services towards complainant, hence we answered Point No.1 in affirmative. 8. The complainant requested to grant an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as a compensation for the said act of opposites, such figure as shown by him is not based on any principles of law are on acceptable grounds. However we have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of these opposites, even though they have credited the amount deducted by them in the account of complainant after his strong protest vide complainants at Ex. P-1 & Ex. P-3, hence we took note of the entire facts and circumstances of this case and a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- is awarded to the complainant under the head of deficiency in service. 9. As regard to the cost of litigation is concerned, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,000/- is awarded, as such the complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the opposites No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally, accordingly we answered Point No. 1 & 2. POINT NO.3:- 10. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is totally entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the Opposites No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. One month time is given to the opposites to pay the said amount to the complainant by the opposites. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 13-11-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant K. Srinivas Gattu against the Opposites 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 20,000/- with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he is the purchaser of Vodafone Mobile Phone bearing No. 9916147551 of opposites. On 20-05-09 he received message from opposites VX-VODAFONE-22 by activating the scheme called as VX-VODAFONE-22 and deducted an amount of Rs. 22/- from his account of the currency without informing him and without getting his consent and on 25-05-09 he received message from opposites regarding crediting of the said amount of Rs. 22/- to his account on the complaint made by him and thereafter once again on 05-06-09 he received one more message from the opposites for deducting the amount of Rs. 22/- towards the said scheme as monthly rental for bonus card facility, thereafter the said amount was credited to his account on 09-06-02 on the basis of the second complaint filed by him, such act of opposites 1 & 2 is of adopting unfair trade practice and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services and thereby he filed this complaint against opposites for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite Parties 1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate filed their detail written version by denying the allegations made by the complainant and prayed for to dismiss the complaint with cost of Rs. 10,000/- 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:- 1. Whether the complainant proves that, on 20-05-09 he received message in his Vodafone Mobile from opposites VX-VODAFONE-22 by activating the scheme known as VX-VODAFONE-22 and deducted subscription of Rs. 22/- in the available currency of the said phone without prior intimation and without his consent and on 25-05-09, he received another message from the opposites regarding the crediting of the said amount of Rs. 22/- to his account on the basis of complaint made by him and thereafter again on 05-06-09 he received one more message in his phone from the opposites regarding the deduction of the amount of Rs. 22/- towards the said scheme as monthly rental for bonus card facility thereafter the said amount was credited to his account on the basis of the complaint filed by him on 09-06-09 and thereby opposites 1 & 2 have adopted unfair trade practice and thereby both of them are found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as stated in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3, Ex.P-3(1) to Ex.P-3(4) are marked. Affidavit-evidence of the Authorized representative and legal head of Karnataka Vodafone was filed he was noted as RW-1. No documents filed and marked. 7. Ex.P-1 the copy of the complaint made by this complainant dt. 22-05-09 before opposites 1 & 2 clearly shows that the complainant requested the opposites not to deduct the amount of Rs. 22/-, as per the message dt. 21-05-09 towards VX-VODAFONE-22 Scheme and as Ex.P-2(1) and Ex.P-2(2) postal acknowledgement shows that the opposites have received the complainant Ex.P-1, but no response shown in writing to the complaint Ex.P-1. Ex.P-3 is the strong protest complainant dt. 05-06-09 to the opposites 1 & 2 regarding the deduction of the amount once again on 05-06-09 without prior intimation and without his consent. Ex.P-3(3) and Ex.P-3(4) are postal acknowledgements for having receipt of Ex.P-3. It appears from the above said facts that the opposites have re-credited the amount of Rs. 22/- to the account of complainant, after strong protest made by him vide Ex.P-3. There are no documentary evidences to over look the documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3, Ex.P-3(3) & Ex.P-3(4), simply the officers of opposites filed affidavit-evidences without acceptable explanation for such deduction, as per the message given by them to the complainant dt. 22-05-09 and 05-06-09 is nothing but that they have adopted un-trade practice by charging their customers in the names of different schemes without their consent and without prior intimation, accordingly these opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services towards complainant, hence we answered Point No.1 in affirmative. 8. The complainant requested to grant an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as a compensation for the said act of opposites, such figure as shown by him is not based on any principles of law are on acceptable grounds. However we have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of these opposites, even though they have credited the amount deducted by them in the account of complainant after his strong protest vide complainants at Ex. P-1 & Ex. P-3, hence we took note of the entire facts and circumstances of this case and a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- is awarded to the complainant under the head of deficiency in service. 9. As regard to the cost of litigation is concerned, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,000/- is awarded, as such the complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the opposites No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally, accordingly we answered Point No. 1 & 2. POINT NO.3:- 10. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is totally entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the Opposites No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. One month time is given to the opposites to pay the said amount to the complainant by the opposites. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 13-11-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.