Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/40/2015

Nikhil Gupta S/o Ashok Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone Store - Opp.Party(s)

Gurjeet Singh

21 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR.

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 40 of 2015

                                                                                          Date of institution: 29.01.2015 

                                                                                          Date of decision: 21.11.2016.

 

       Nikhil Gupta, Advocate, aged about 24 years, son of Shri Ashok Gupta, resident of House No. C-II/216, Devi Bhawan Bazar,                  Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Vodafone Store, 40-B, Model Town, near Nehru Park, Yamuna Nagar District Yamuna Nagar, through its Incharge/Manager.
2. Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Circle Head Office, 173, HSIDC, Industrial Area, Sector-3, Karnal, District Karnal, through its authorized Person/Manager.

                                                                                                                             …Respondents

 

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Shri Gurjeet Sangwan, Advocate for complainant.

                        Shri Ramneek Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is consumer of Vodafone Mobile, bearing No.088140-02841. On 16.12.2014, the complainant  received a message on his mobile phone from the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs company) to the effect that they are giving 1024MB (1GB) of 2G data valid for 30 days on payment of Rs.155/- and for that purpose the complainant was advised to dial at No.*444*155#. The complainant being interested to the data, dialed the said number and the complainant received a message for receiving 750MB data only with 21 days validity. On receipt of this message, the complainant made a telephonic call to the Customer Care Number of OPs and told the facts whereupon the complainant was told that within 24 hours, he shall receive the balance data. The complainant waited for quite sufficient time but no data was received by the complainant. After that, complainant again called to customer care but this time complainant was advised to approach to OP No.1 for his grievance. The complainant approached the OP No.1 and stated the whole story and official of the OP No.1 sent a complaint No.2100170761 to their higher officers on behalf of the complainant through e-mail. In response to that e-mail, they replied the fact that the data received by the complainant is correct and no more data will be given to the complainant. This act of the OPs Company is totally illegal and constituted the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. A legal notice was also issued on 24.12.2014 but all in vain. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation imposed by Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; without jurisdiction; complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been mentioned that no such message was ever sent on mobile No.88140-02841 of the complainant that the OPs Company is providing 1024MB data of 2G valid for 30 days  on payment of Rs.155/-. It has been further mentioned that data plan, which was available in the market for Rs.155/-, was “750 MB data valid for 21 days” which was duly provided to the complainant when he recharged his mobile number through USSD mode in the month of December, 2014 and the same has been confirmed to the complainant through SMS once it was activated. Rests of the contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his case complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and photo copies of documents such as printout of screen shot of the SMS as Annexure C-1, postal receipts as Annexure C-2, Legal Notice as Ann. C-3 and during the course of arguments filed literature by advertisement by Vodafone which was ordered to marked as Annexure C-4 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Kumar Singh (Manager Legal) as RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas learned counsel for the OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view, that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs Company as from the perusal of copy of screen shot (Annexure C1). It is duly evident that 1GB of 2G data usage @ Rs.155/ 30 days was provided by the OPs Company. Further from the perusal of home page of tariff plan downloaded on the internet (Annexure C4). It is duly evident that 1GB data for 2G valid for 30 days was given @Rs.155 by the OPs Company in their tariff plan. These two documents have neither been denied nor rebutted by the OPs Company. Further, it is also not the case of the OPs that complainant did not recharge his mobile to the tune of Rs.155/- by using *444*155# as displayed in the screen shot (Annexure C-1 and Annexure C-4). The version of the OPs that no such message was conveyed to the complainant and there was no such scheme of the OPs Company to provide 1GB data of 2G @Rs.155/ 30 days is not tenable as the complainant has placed on file screen shot of the message as well as home page of the OPs Company from which it is clearly evident that this scheme was given by the Company.  As such,  OPs Company has taken wrong and illegal plea that no such SMS was sent to the complainant. Taking into consideration both these documents (Annexure C1 and C4), we are of the considered view that OPs Company has played an unfair Trade Practice with the complainant which constitute the deficiency in service on their part.

9.                     In support of his case learned counsel for the complainant has also referred the case law titled as “Spice Communication Private Limited Versus Gurinder Kaur and another 2010(3) CPC, Page No.152”.

10.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court: 21.11.2016.

                             

(S.C.SHARMA)                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

      MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

                                                                                      DCDRF Yamuna Nagar