Delhi

East Delhi

CC/388/2013

SHASHI KANTNAUTIYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

VODAFONE - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI-92

CC No.388/2013:

Sh.PranjalNautiyal

S/o. Sh. Shashi KantNautiyal

R/o. G – 41, G – 1/1176, Mansarovar Park,

ShahdaraNearRailway Line, Delhi – 110 032

Complainant

Vs

1. Vodafone Store

E – 356, NirmanVihar,

Vikas Marg, New Delhi-110092

 

2. Vodafone Store

C – 48, Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase – II, New Delhi

                      Respondents         

                                                      Date of Admission -14/05/2013

                                         Date of Order         - 26/12/2015

 

O R D E R

 

 

Poonam Malhotra, Member :

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant is using two prepaid mobile numbers 9718955286 and 9811460218 for the last three years.In response to a phone call from the executive of the respondent the complainant agreed to convert his said mobile connections into postpaid numbers. On 07^thApril, 2013 the executive of the respondent visited his house and received a sum of Rs.500/- from him against Receipt No.13720 dated 07/04/2013 and assured him that the postpaid connections of the aforementioned numbers would be activated within three working days.  On 10/04/2013 the complainant received a Welcome Note Letter from the respondent and the number 9718955286 was activated but the other number 9811460218 was not activated.  On 13/04/2013 the respondent stopped the outgoing from the said number.  Immediately the complainant contacted the Customer Care of the respondent and he was surprised to know that the due to his negative address verification the outgoing of the number 9811460218 has been stopped by the respondent.  Repeated complaintswere lodged by the complainant at the Customer Care of the Respondent but in vain. Meeting with the manager of the Respondent No.I on 21/04/2013 was also of no consequence.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the respondent to activate his mobile number 9811460218 and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment. He has also claimed legal expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

An Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was moved by the respondent seeking the dismissal of the present complaint in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan dated 01/09/2009 whereby in view of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts to entertain the individual consumer complaints of telecom sector was barred.

The respondent filed their reply wherein while admitting the facts that the complainant had applied with Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. for the conversion of his two prepaid numbers 9718955286 and 9811460218 into postpaid numbers and paid Rs. 500/- (i.e., @ Rs.250/- per connection) vide Receipt No.13720 dated 07/04/2013.  It is submitted by the respondents that they function under the Department of Telecommunications, GOI and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and it is mandatory for the respondents to maintain prescribed verification documents for identity proof and residence proof for each activated connection.  The subscriber has to personally present himself and self-attest the copies of the identity proof and residence proofwhich are verified with their respective original documents. In the present case though the complainant applied for the conversion of two prepaid connections into postpaid ones but he furnished only one set of verification documents viz., self-attested copies of identity proof and residence proof.  Despite request to the complainant to visit their Authorized Outletfor verification, he has not submitted the said verification documents for the mobile number 9811460218 till date.  The respondents have also raised the issue of jurisdiction on the point of law as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in General Manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan. There is no question of any deficiency of service.  The complaint needs to be dismissed.

No rejoinder to the written statement of the respondents refuting their allegations filed by the complainant.  Only evidences by way of affidavit reiterating the contentions made in the complaint filed by the complainant.  Respondents filed their evidence by way of affidavit reconfirming the submissions made by them in their written statement.

 

Heard the arguments of the parties and perused the records.

 

The question regarding jurisdiction of this Forum on the basis of Section 7 B of the Telegraph Act has been set at rest post Clarification in the Circular Letter of the Govt. of India clarifying the position that Private Licensing Service Providers like VodafoneMobile Services Ltd. are not covered by Section 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.  The Govt. of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution in letter dated 07.03.2014 has mentioned that the Department of Telecommunications vide theirLetter No. 2-17/2013-Policy -I dated 24^th January, 2014 has informed that the District Fora are competent to entertain the consumer disputes involving telecom service providers and consumers and have mentioned that Section 7 B shall only be attracted in the matter of dispute between the Telegraph Authority and the consumers.  The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has clarified the situation and it has emphasized that the cases between the Consumers and Licensees under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act shall be triable before the District Forum. The Hon’ble National Commission has also ruled in view of the Circular of the Department of Telecommunications, Govt. of India in favour of the Consumer in Revision Petition No. 1228 of 2013 in the matter of Bharti Hexacom Ltd. Vs. Komal Prakash &Anr.  In view of the above, the objection of the respondent raised in application and written statement is not sustainable.

            With regard to the allegation of non-activation of the mobile number 9811460218 by the respondents, it is pertinent to mention here that neither the complainant has refuted the contention raised by the respondents in their written statement and reaffirmed by them on oath in their affidavit in evidence that the complainant had furnished only one set of verification documents viz., self-attested copies of identity proof and residence proof when he sought the conversion of his two prepaid mobile numbers into postpaid ones nor is it the case of the complainant that he had given two sets of self-attested verification documents for the conversion of his two prepaid mobile numbers into postpaid ones.  The contention that despite request by the respondents to the complainant to visit their Authorized Outlet for verification, he has not submitted the said verification documents for the mobile number 9811460218 till date has also not been rebutted by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that in view of the Mandatory Direction or Rule issued by the Govt. of India or TRAI the respondents are mandatorily requiredto maintain prescribed verification documents for identity proof and residence proof as a mandatory precondition for the activation of anymobile connection. We find substance in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. The respondents were well within their rights & justified in demanding the self-attested copies of the said verification documents and retaining the same in their record after verifying the same from their respective originals.  In these circumstances, the respondents cannot be held liable fordeficiency in service when the complainant himself has admitted failed to furnish the requisite verification documents in compliance to the mandatory precondition issued by the Govt. of India or TRAI for the activation of any mobile number. 

We don’t find any merit in this complaint but in the interest of justice we dispose of this complaint with a direction to the respondents to activate the mobile number 9811460218 of the complainant if he complies with the prescribed mandatory requirements of submission of the verification documents as per the prescribed mandatory direction or Rule issued by the Govt. of India or TRAI within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, no order as to compensation & costs.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per Rules.

 

(Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                                    (N.A.Zaidi)

         Member                                                                                                              President