DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 258 of 7.7.2017
Decided on: 11.5.2018
Om Parkash Yadav S/o Sh.Hardayal Yadav, R/o # 545-C, Ranjit Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Vodafone India Ltd., Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 (INDIA) Mobile: 022-71715000, 022-24963645.
2. Pun-Vodafone Store, leela Bhawan, Patiala, Punjab.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Authorized
representative of complainant.
Sh. Amardeep Singh Saran, Advocate,
counsel for OPs No.1&2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Om Parkash Yadav, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.)
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that on 10.3.2017, the complainant after paying the due amount of Rs.480/- got his Sim No.9646335545 closed. He also paid Rs.50/- as payment for 10 days on 17.3.2017. However, the OPs sent bill dated 1.6.2017, for an amount of Rs.399.98, for the period from 11.3.2017 to 31.5.2017. In this regard, the complainant sent an e-mail dated 5.7.2017 to OP no.1, who sent reply to the same on 6.7.2017 but failed to settle the matter. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to cancel the unnecessary bill of Rs.399.98; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.10,000/-as litigation expenses. Any other relief which this Forum may deem fit may also be granted.
3. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and is liable to be dismissed. On merits , it is stated that Postpaid mobile connection was running under the Plan Corp 100 plan and at the request of the complainant, on 17.3.2017, on payment of Rs.50/- , plan was changed to Annual Rental Plan and its annual rent was Rs.300 per annum + taxes and as it was activated from 11.3.2017 onward, hence the annual rentals were charged . Further the complainant decided to retain in the services. Accordingly amount of Rs.50/- was further credited into the next bill circle and adjusted towards the bill dated 1.4.2017 for the billing period 1.3.2017 to 31.3.2017. The complainant made the payment on 10.3.2017 for the outstanding of two bills for the period 1.2.2017 to 28.2.2017 and for 1.1.2017 to 31.1.2017, to the tune of Rs.480/- out of Rs.483.39. It is denied that the complainant was told to make payment for 10 days on 17.3.2017. It is stated that the bill was generated on 1.4.2017 for Rs.388.29. It is stated that the mobile bill generated on 1.4.2017 , for the billing period 1.3.2017 to 31.3.2017 was as per the old plan i.e. Rs.388.29 and an adjustment of Rs.50/- was made out of this amount and the total amount due on 1.4.2017 was Rs.341.88. It is stated that on the request of the complainant for the new bill plan, the bill generated for the billing period 1.4.2017 to 30.4.2017 was for Rs.57.50 only which was with late fee charges, as the complainant did not pay the previous month’s bill and as the complainant was again failed to make the payment of the bill for the month of March, the amount due on 1.5.2017 was Rs.399.38 (341.88 for March Plus Rs.57.50 for April 2017 respectively). The bills have been issued as per the usages made by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA his affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex OPA, affidavit of Sh.Pushkal Chauhan, authorized signatory of OP/Vodafone Mobile service Ltd.The evidence of OPs No.1&2 was closed by order as they failed to produce any other document despite taking ample opportunities in this regard.
5. We have heard the representative of the complainant, the ld. counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. At the outset, the ld. counsel for OPs has raised the objection that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum , in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Krishnan Vs. G. M. Telecom AIR 2010 Supreme Court 90.
It may be stated here that in the case of Bharti Hexacom Ltd. Vs. Komal Parkash & another, Revision Petition No.1223 of 2013 decided on 2.5.2014, the Hon’ble National Commission, after discussing the case of M. Krishnan Vs. G. M. Telecom AIR 2010 Supreme Court 90. (supra) in detail, has held that the Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are competent to entertain the disputes between the individual telecom consumer and telecom service providers. This Forum has also received a copy of letter dated 7.3.2014, of Ministry of Consumer Affairs, from the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab Chandigarh, on 3.4.2014, wherein it is stated that the District Forum has the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers. In this view of the matter, this Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter involved in the present case and the objection raised by the ld. counsel for the OPs is not sustainable, hence rejected.
7. On merits, the representative of the complainant has submitted that on the request of the complainant, the ops had disconnected the mobile number issued vide sim No.9646335545, as is evident from the copy of document Ex.C1, issued by the OP No.1 but it sent him the bills subsequently thereafter also. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that in fact the complainant had not made any request for the disconnection of the mobile number but had requested for change of plan.
8. From the perusal of the copy of document,Ex.C1, it is evident that the word ‘closed’ has been found written on a printed paper of Vodafone Company and it also bears the signatures but no such document has been placed on record by the OPs to show that in fact the complainant had made a request not for disconnection but for the change of plan. Thus, we have no reason to disbelieve the contention of the complainant that he had requested the OPs for the disconnection of the mobile number. Once the mobile connection had been disconnected then there was no occasion for the OPs to send the bills thereafter. By sending the bills Exs.C3 to C5,after the disconnection of the mobile connection, the OPs have committed deficiency in service, which caused lot of harassment to the complainant and they are liable to compensate the complainant for the same. The end of justice would be met, if the OPs be directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.3000/- to complainant. Accordingly we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.3000/- to the complainant, within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:11.5.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
