Delhi

East Delhi

cc/309/2012

Pilkit jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

VODAFONE - Opp.Party(s)

17 Aug 2012

ORDER

Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, DELHI -110092
DELHI EAST
 
Complaint Case No. cc/309/2012
 
1. Pilkit jain
M 79, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110 092
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. VODAFONE
E 356, Vikas Marg Nirman Vihar, Delhi 110 092
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SUKHDEV.SINGH PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Dr.P.N Tiwari MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. MRS HARPREET KAUR MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 17 Aug 2012
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 309/12

 

Shri Pulkit Jain

S/o Shri Virender Jain

R/o M-79, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

  1. The Manager

M/s. Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd.

E-356, Vikas Marg

Nirman Vihar, Delhi – 110 092

 

  1. Ms. Anita Mishra

Service Relationship Manager

Vodafone Essar Ltd.

C-45, Okhla Industrial Area Phase – II

New Delhi – 110 020

 

  1. The Manager

M/s. Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd. Regional Office

C-48, Okhla Industrial Area Phase – II

New Delhi – 110 020                                                                    ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 22.05.2012

Judgment Reserved for : 11.08.2016

Judgment Passed on : 24.08.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint pertains to non-activation of international roaming of the complainant, Shri Pulkit Jain by M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. (OP-1), despite depositing security amount. 

2.        Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant deposited a security amount of Rs. 3,000/- with OP on 19.01.2012 for activation of international roaming vide receipt-cum-invoice bearing serial no.          HS-00000-P5-PAPKSHDOGRA-121814543 dated 19.01.2012.  The said services were not activated by OP.  It is stated that the complainant requested to adjust the security amount towards the payment of his bills, which was not done and ultimately his outgoing call facility was deactivated.  The security deposit was neither adjusted nor refunded.  Hence, the complainant filed the complaint, alleging deficiency in services and has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 2,61,000/-.

3.        Notice of the complaint was duly served on the OP and they filed their WS, where they have raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint.  They have admitted that the complaint had deposited a security amount of Rs. 3,000/- but at the same time, they also state that the complainant did not make any request for deactivation.

            Thereafter, both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  The complainant has examined Shri Pulkit Jain who is relying on Ex. CW1, receipt-cum-invoice (CW2 &3) and copies of emails (CW4).   Legal notice is exhibited as CW5.

            The OP has filed affidavit of Shri B. Arutsivan, Manager Legal with the OP and has placed statement of account of complainant as ExR1/1 and customer agreement form as Ex. R1/2.  The matter was reserved for orders on 14.01.2016, but relisted for arguments on 11.08.2016.

  1. We have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  First deciding on the preliminary objections of the OP, this Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers vide notification No. 2-17/2013, issued by Department of Telecommunication, reliance has been placed on judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi “JK Mittal Vs. UOI, WP(C) C8285/2010”. 

Even during the arguments, counsel for the OP admitted that they were willing to refund the security deposit of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant.  Thus, it is admitted that Rs. 3,000/- was still with the OP and vide email dated 24.01.2014, the complainant has categorically mentioned that he does not want to activate the roaming services.

Thus, it is apparent that OP has been using the money deposited by the complainant.  The OP has neither provided the services for which the security was deposited nor refunded/adjusted the said security.  Hence, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice and deficiency in services. 

  1. Hence, OP was directed to refund Rs. 3,000/- alongwith simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit.  We also award compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 3,500/- as cost of litigation.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

      (DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                                 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

           

       (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SUKHDEV.SINGH]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dr.P.N Tiwari]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MRS HARPREET KAUR]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.