Punjab

Moga

CC/17/31

Rinku Anjor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone Store - Opp.Party(s)

In person

12 Jul 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 31 of 2017

                                                                                      Instituted on: 09.03.2017

                                                                                      Decided on:  12.07.2017

 

Rinku Anjor aged about 32 years, son of Ram Anjor, resident of Dharam Singh Nagar, Godhewala Moga, Tehsil and District Moga.

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       Vodafone Store, Amritsar Road, Moga -142001, through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.

 

2.       Vodafone Mobile Service Limited, C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-8, Mohali, Punjab – 160071, through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.

 

3.       Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi- 110020, through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.   

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Rinku Anjor, complainant in person.

                   Opposite party no.1 ex-parte.

                   Sh. Vishal Jain, Advocate Cl. for opposite party nos.2 & 3.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Vodafone Store, Amritsar Road, Moga, through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to reinstate the services of SIM connection bearing no.96467-63605. Further they may be directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of damages, mental tension, harassment and loss physically and economically, Rs.25,000/- on account of loss of work, Rs.1100/- as cost of legal notice and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be granted.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is that consumer of opposite parties, as a connection no.96467-63605 of opposite party company is running on his name since last 7 years and there is no due towards the complainant. On 02.01.2017, complainant received a text message from the company of opposite parties, whereby they asked to submit his ID proofs to the local Vodafone Store for continuation of his mobile number, but at that time complainant was out of station due to some of his personal domestic work and he could not keep his ID proof with him, so due to this reason, complainant could not submit his ID proof with the local store of Vodafone on the same day. Thereafter, on the very next day i.e. on 03.01.2017, complainant again received a text message from the opposite parties, whereby they again directed the complainant to submit his ID proofs within 72 hours and at that time complainant immediately rushed to the local office i.e. opposite party no.1 and produced his ID proofs, but the staff of opposite party no.1 informed him that the services on his number had already been disconnected and if he wanted to re-instate the services, he has to pay a sum of Rs.500/- and only then his services could be re-instated and not only this he was also told that once the post-paid services will be given on this number initially for a period of 6 months and only after that he can convert the same into prepaid service. It is further alleged that the number of the complainant was a prepaid number and complainant does not want to convert it into post-paid connection. The complainant visited in the office of opposite party no.1 various time, moreover the complainant also tried to contact with opposite party nos.2 & 3, but with no fruitful result. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Due to the above said negligent, irresponsible act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered from loss of his work as the complainant is doing private job and he has to waste his time in visiting the office of opposite parties. The complainant many times requested the opposite parties to reinstate his connection, but they ignored the same and finally refused to reconnect the services of mobile connection of the complainant. The complainant also served a legal notice upon the opposite parties, but all in vain. Hence this complaint.

3.                Notice issued for the service of opposite party no.1 duly served. But despite that none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1. As such, opposite party no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared opposite party nos.2 & 3 appeared through their counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant has failed to disclose the cause of action regarding which the complaint is relating deficiency in service; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, as the appropriate Forum for filing the present complaint by the complainant is under the provisions of section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and the present tribunal/court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. Further submitted that the complainant himself ignored the reminders issued by the answering opposite parties to him.  Further the mobile connection was not disconnected on 03.01.2017 as alleged by the complainant. The mobile connection was disconnected after provided opportunity to the complainant to submit his ID Proofs and the new set of documents/ID proofs were asked by answering opposite parties for the compliance of the DOT Guidelines as it was an old number. The mobile connection was disconnected on 04.01.2017 and not on 03.01.2017. The complainant with malafide intention has stated the wrong facts before this Forum. After intimation given to the complainant for the submission of the new set of documents, the complainant was given a time of 72 hours for the submission of the documents with answering opposite parties. The complainant was himself at fault for not submitting the documents with answering opposite parties and there is no deficiency in services on the part of answering opposite parties. The new sets of documents were asked for the security purposes of the Nation and economy and for the duties of Mobile Telecommunication Services towards TRAI and as per the guidelines of the DOT. Thus, the complainant had failed to perform his part of duty to submit the new set of documents with the opposite parties which is against the policies of the answering opposite parties to maintain the complete record of their customers; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties. The mobile connection is still retained by the answering opposite parties under the safe custody and for want of new set of documents from the complainant. The answering opposite parties had never asked to the complainant for the payment of Rs.500/- and post paid connection for the reactivation of the mobile connection. The complainant had concocted a wrong story with the mala-fide intention just to gain publicity and wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the answering opposite parties. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that mobile connection was running since 7 years. It is further admitted to the extent that on 02.01.2017 the opposite parties sent the intimation to the complainant that within 72 hours as per the guidelines of the DOT to submit his ID proofs or new set of documents with the answering opposite parties. The answering opposite parties had also sent a reminder to the complainant on 03.01.2017 for the submission of new set of documents. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost has been made.

5.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence. 

6.                On the other hand, opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Pushkal Chauhan, Manager Legal, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., Mohali Ex.OP-2, 3/1 and copy of e-mail and status of disconnection of mobile number of complainant Ex.OP-2, 3/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.

7.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

8.                Complainant argued that he was having a mobile connection no.96467-63605 issued by opposite party company since  the last 7 years. On 02.01.2017, he received a text message from opposite parties, whereby they asked to submit his ID proofs to the local Vodafone Store for continuation of this mobile phone service, but at that time he was out of station for some personal domestic work, so due to this reason he could not submit his ID proof with the local store of Vodafone on the same day. On the very next day i.e. on 03.01.2017, complainant again received a text message from the opposite parties, whereby they again directed the complainant to submit his ID proofs within 72 hours and at that time complainant immediately rushed to the local office of. opposite parties and produced his ID proofs, but the staff of opposite parties informed him that the services on his number had already been disconnected and if he wanted to re-instate the services, he has to pay a sum of Rs.500/- and only then his services could be re-instated. Not only this, he was also told that once the post-paid services will be given on this number initially for a period of 6 months and only after that he can convert the same into prepaid service. The complainant visited to the office of opposite parties a number of times and requested them to re-instate his mobile connection, but they failed to reactivate the connection of the complainant.

9.                On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party nos.2 & 3 argued that  the mobile connection of the complainant was disconnected after providing opportunity to him to submit his ID Proofs and the new set of documents/ID proofs were asked by the opposite parties in compliance of the DOT Guidelines as it was an old number. Further the mobile connection was disconnected 04.01.2017 and not on 03.01.2017 as alleged by the complainant. The complainant was given a time of 72 hours for the submission of the documents to opposite parties, but the complainant failed to perform his part of duty and did not submit the new set of documents with the opposite parties, as such, his connection was deactivate. Further argued that the mobile connection is still retained under the safe custody of opposite parties and for want of new set of documents from the complainant. The opposite parties never asked to the complainant for the payment of Rs.500/- and a post paid connection for the reactivation of the mobile connection. The complainant had concocted a wrong story.

10.              Now, it is admitted case of the parties that complainant is consumer of opposite parties having a mobile connection bearing no. 96467-63605 issued by opposite parties in his name. It is also admitted that on 02.01.2017, the opposite parties sent a message to complainant to submit his ID proofs with them and the complainant did not submit his ID proofs with opposite parties on the same day, as he was out of station on that day. Thereafter, opposite parties sent another message on 03.01.2017 to complainant to submit his ID/proofs with them within 72 hours. On it, the version of the complainant is that on next day i.e. 03.01.2017, when he received the message regarding submitting of ID proofs/documents, he immediately rushed to local office of opposite parties and produced his ID proofs/documents, but he was told that services on his mobile number had already been disconnected. The complainant argued that in the message sent by opposite parties, they had given a time period of 72 hours to submit the ID proofs, but they disconnected his connection on 03.01.2017 i.e. before the time provided by them. He argued that the opposite parties wrongly and illegally disconnected his mobile connection. On it, the version of the opposite parties is that the connection of the complainant was disconnected on 04.01.2017 and not on 03.01.2017 as alleged by the complainant. The version of the opposite parties is that they had given a period of 72 hours to complainant to submit his ID proofs and the complainant has filed to provide his ID proofs within this period. If we agree with the version of opposite parties that they disconnected the connection of the complainant on 04.01.2017 instead of 03.01.2017, then in that case also, opposite parties are at fault, because on 04.01.2017 the time period of 72 hours provided by them was not expired. We are of the considered opinion that opposite parties wrongly and illegally disconnected the connection of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

11.              From the above discussion, the present complaint stands allowed and opposite parties are directed to re-activate the mobile connection of the complainant free of cost, subject to deposit of ID proofs/documents by the complainant. Further opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5000/-(five thousand only) as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 12.07.2017.

 

                                                  (Bhupinder Kaur)                           (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                                Member                                       President