Delhi

East Delhi

CC/162/2016

AMIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

VODAFONE - Opp.Party(s)

20 Sep 2018

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                

                                                                                          Consumer complaint no.        162 /2016

                                                                                                  Date of Institution      –         31/03/2016

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 20/09/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order         -             24/09/2018 

                                                                                                        

In matter of -                                                                                                   

Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, adult  

S/o- Sh Kanti Prasad Sharma

R/o- S- 221, School Block,

Shakarpur, Delhi 92 …………………………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s  Manager, Vodafone Store,

Plot no. 529, School Block, Shakarpur, Delhi 92

 

2-M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd    

C-48, Okhala Industrial Area, PH. II                

New Delhi 110020.……………………….…………………………….Opponent

                                                                                            

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh       President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur     Member                                                                                                    

                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member -

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

 

Complainant had Vodafone mobile connection vide mob. No. 9873508529 since long and the said no. was suddenly stopped by OP2 from 01/12/2015. Complainant paid outstanding bill Rs 1669/- and number was restarted where he had credit limit of Rs 1500/-(ExCW1/1 to 4).

It was stated that complainant activated roaming services as he used to visit out of Delhi frequently.  But after some times, roaming facility was also stopped from 30/11/2015 and even inquiring from OP customer care, no satisfactory reply was given whereas he received bill up to 23/12/2015. When he did not get reason for stopping roaming facility, tried to give notice by hand at OP1 office who refused to receive, so complainant sent to customer care (Ex CW1/5). At last he filed this complaint and claimed compensation for harassment Rs 1Lacs, with all facilities as per new tariff and plan.

OP submitted written statement denying all the allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services. It was stated that complainant had not paid his monthly bills issued from OP office regularly and outstanding was remaining in every bill. The annexed zerox of monthly bills itself showed that his connection was post paid not a free connection as claimed. His mobile connection was discontinued in accordance to Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. Complainant did not pay outstanding bill of Rs 633/-in Ex OPW12/1 and increased to Rs 1669/- up to 12/12/2015. The outstanding bill again increased to Rs 2071/-up to 11/01/2016 and then amount was due up to Rs 2100/-till 11/02/2016, some amount was paid in between leaving balance of Rs 1492/- It was stated that outstanding bill was 1492/-up to 11/09/2016 was pending since long. OP after taking reference of certain citations of higher courts and giving notices and reminders, connection was discontinued.

It had also been stated that complainant had raised deficiency in service disputes in mobile connectivity. Such issues were again out of preview of this Forum as per Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. OP referred citation of Hon. Supreme Court in “General Manager, Telecom vs M Krishnan & others, (2009) 8 SCC 481 where it was laid down regarding Sec. 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act where telephone bill and service issues were present, remedy under The Consumer Protection Act was barred. Similar law was laid down in “Prakash Verma vs Idea Cellular Ltd.” by NCDRC in RP 1703/2010 where complaint was dismissed on such issues. OP stated that as per Rule 443 of the Indian Telephone Rules, 1951, connection was disconnected for nonpayment of bills and the same mob. No. was issued to some other customers. Hence, it was prayed that there was no deficiency in the service of OP nor any unfair trade practice was adopted against the complainant. So this complaint may be dismissed. 

Complainant filed his rejoinder with evidence on affidavit and affirmed on oath that all facts in his complaint were correct and true. Complainant had also submitted all bill details for mobile no.  9873508529 showing payment details (Ex CW1/ to 4).

OP also submitted their evidence on affidavit through Md. Nidhi Soni, working as Manager with OP affirmed on oath that all the contents as exhibits on record and correct facts stated their written statement and evidences were correct and true in reference to the judgments of Apex court and OP were never deficient in their services. OP also argued for the dismissal of complaint in reference of Statutory Bar under Section 7B of The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Complainant submitted his written arguments and taken on record.

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels. File perused and order was reserved.

Before going through all the facts and evidences on record, it was noted that complainant was ready to outstanding bill of Rs 1500/-, but stressed for issuing same number to be allotted by OP2 with all the facilities as he had prior to disconnection.

We have gone through all the facts and evidence on record. It was clear that complainant had mob. No. 9873508529, but due to nonpayment of overdue monthly bills despite of giving notices and reminders, OP disconnected the services as per the settled principles of Indian Telegraph Act and related Apex court judgments and directions, no deficiency was seen in the services of OP2.

Hence, disconnection was justified. As far as payment of due of Rs 1500/- are pending, complainant is directed to pay the dues within 30 days to OP without adding any further amount by OP. As far as issuing the same number is concerned, that cannot be ordered to OP. If complainant wants to take services from OP then he has to complete all the formalities abiding all terms and conditions.

 

We have come to the conclusion that outstanding amount to Rs 1500/-be shall deposited by complainant in the stipulated time with OP and submit the acknowledgment in the case file.

Hence, this complaint is disposed off without cost. 

 

The first free copy of the order be sent to the parties as per the Regulations and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                                   Mrs Harpreet Kaur, Member

 

                                                                        Shri Sukhdev Singh President