The instant case was instituted on the basis of an application filed by the complainant/petitioner under Section 12 of Consumer protection Act, 1986 which was registered as Consumer Case No. 29/17 in this Forum for seeking relief as prayed for.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition as well as from the evidence is that the petitioner/complainant Dipen Barman is a permanent resident of Madhupur Barduari, Raiganj, Dist. Uttar Dinajpur within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant had a SIM Card of Vodafone bearing No.8145169727 for last four years and he used that number everywhere. On 08.03.2017 all on a sudden the said mobile number was stopped. The complainant/petitioner contacted the O.P and the O.P stated that due to technical fault that mobile number was stopped, within few days the problem will be solved. But after laps of 20 days the mobile number was not in order. The complainant further stated that he recharge the said mobile number on 04.03.2017.  Thereafter the complainant again contacted with O.P./Vodafone Store. The O.P stated that that number was stopped and they did not give any documents to the complainant in this regard. The O.P. also humiliates the complainant. Finding no other alternative the complainant has come to the Forum for redressal claiming that the said mobile number again in operative condition, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost.

The petition has been contested by the Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. by fling W.V denying all the material allegations as leveled against the Vodafone Company. The written version has been given in two parts, one part is part A and second part is part B. Part A deals with the matter regarding the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ( TRAI) as regards to the Charges and Revenue Sharing Regulation and other matters. Part A also contends that as per sec.27 and 15 of TRAI Act the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any matters which falls within the jurisdiction of TRAI and TDSAT. According to the objection the Consumer Protection Act 1986 vest the power of Civil Court with the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum/Commission. Part B deals with the allegations as leveled against the Company contending inter alia that the complainant is not a customer of the Vodafone Company as the SIM was issued in the name of Ashoke Gurung and the said connection is post paid connection. So the complainant is not a consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act under the O.P. As such the petition is to be rejected with cost.

During trial the complainant was examined as p.w.1 and he was cross examined and he files some documents. On the other hand the O.P did not adduce any evidence.

Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for as being a consumer of Vodafone Company.                          

                        Decision with reasons

At the time of argument the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P submits that the complainant is not a customer of the Vodafone Company. The SIM in respect of the mobile No. is a post paid connection and it was issued in the name of Ashoke Gurung. In this regard the Ld. Lawyer for the O.P files the Xerox copy if the document showing that the SIM card bearing No.8145169727 was issued in the name of Ashoke Gurung. How the complainant claimed that he is a customer of the Vodafone Company.

On the other hand the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant submitted that he has recharged Rs.23/- on 04.03.17 and Rs.30/- on 04.03.17. According to the argument unless and until the complainant is a customer why he will recharge the talk value. So definitely he has a consumer of the Vodafone Company. Moreover, the Ld. Lawyer further submitted as there was some problem in the mobile he gave it to the Samsung Service Centre for repair. So by such document the Ld.lawyer wants to impress upon the Forum that in the Customer Service Centre’s receipt the mobile number has been mentioned as 8145169727. So, by such document the Ld. Lawyer wants to impress upon the Forum that the complainant is a customer under Vodafone Company. So definitely he is the consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. But such document is not tenable as because no document has been submitted by the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant to show that the SIM card was issued in the name of the complainant. On the other hand it goes to show that it is possible that recharge of MRP of Rs.23/- and Rs.30/- was successfully done on 04.03.17. So, definitely it can be said that the complainant is not a customer of the Vodafone Company. As such he is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, presently the Central Government is performing the SIM card verification. This is why the particular SIM number has been stopped. As the complainant is not a customer of the Vodafone Company as such he is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. So he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

C.F. Paid is correct.

Hence it is,

                                      O r d e r e d

That the instant consumer complaint being No. CC – 29/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.