Delhi

East Delhi

CC/890/2014

SACHIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

VODOFONE MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

27 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 890/14

 

Shri Sachin Aggarwal

S/o Late Shri A.K. Aggarwal

R/o X/2639, Gali No. 6

Raghubar Pura No. 2

Gandhi Nagar, Delhi – 110 031                                                  ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.

C-48, Okhla Industrial Area

Phase – II, New Delhi – 110 020

 

 

2. M/s. Vodafone Store

K-62, Chachi Building

Krishna Nagar, Delhi – 110 051                                                 ….Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 26.09.2014

Judgment Reserved for : 27.09.2016

Judgment Passed on : 21.10.2016

 

 

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 has been filed by the complainant Shri Sachin Aggarwal against M/s. Vodafone Store, OP with allegation of deficiency in services.

2.        This complaint pertains to two connections in the name of the complainant, mobile No. 9899533520 was being used by the complainant for past 6 years, wherein he had averred that an escalated bill was sent to him.  He submitted that OP had charged Rs. 900/- for 0.39 GB.  For this, he had written several emails to OP on 10^th July 2014 and 11^th July 2014, which were forwarded to Vodafone Nodal Officer, Relationship Manager and Corporate Care.  Another grievance related to the above mentioned mobile no. was that complainant was asked to pay Rs. 800/- as SMS charges as he had not activated SMS package.

            The second grievance was regarding mobile no. 8588831610.  The complainant had purchased the said number in September, 2013, where he was informed by the executive that the number was under a 3 month lump-sum scheme where the complainant shall get 3G data plan for        3 months and on expiry of 3 months, 3G services would be automatically discontinued.  For this also, complainant had sent mail to officers of OP on 25.06.2014.  The OP had generated bill of Rs. 1671.92 for the month of December, January and February, where else, the 3 months from September 2013 ended on November 2013.  The complainant had alleged that most of the time, he was issued wrong bills, late fees was imposed for non payment.  Due to non payment, complainant’s mobile services were discontinued and he had to suffer in business.  The complainant has prayed for rectification of errors in bill, Rs. 75,000/- on account of harassment and litigation charges. 

3. Notice of the complaint was served upon OP after that OP filed their WS, where in it was stated that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum to entertain the present complaint was barred by virtue of S-7B of Indian Telegraph Act and referred to General Manager Telecom Vs.     M. Krishnan.  Preliminary submissions were made wherein it was submitted that the complainant had signed the customer agreement form, which was binding and legally enforceable marked as Annexure R1 and R2 respectively.  The complainant was bound by the term and conditions with respect to connection bearing no. 9899533520 where he had opted for rental-Mi-Vol-3G-250-1GB where monthly rental was Rs. 250/- and 1GB free data was given to the customer.  The statement of accounts was marked as Annexure R3.

It was also submitted that as far as connection number 8588831610 was concerned, the complainant had opted for Tariff Plan MBB-C-V_650_30d_3GB_FV_3G for which Rs. 1950/- were paid as advance rental for 3 months.  So, past 3 months, Rs. 650/- per month was to be paid as rental.  In the said plan, complainant was to get 3 GB data free.  It was further submitted that bills were raised for 28.12.2013 for Rs. 842/-, 28.01.2014 for Rs. 830/- and 28.02.2014 for Rs. 94/- and was disconnected due to non payment.  It was due to the non payment of bills, the connections were disconnected.  It was also submitted that the call metering was done through automated machines and were audited by TRAI.  The complainant had used 1.39 GB data out of which he was charged for 0.39GB, which was explained in bill dated 03.06.2014 marked as annexure R4. 

4.        The email dated 13.07.2014 was marked as Annexure R5.  it was denied that the complainant was charged Rs. 800/- instead of Rs. 55/- as SMS charges with respect to connection 9899533520.  It was submitted that the complainant had neither disclosed the month nor averred that he had opted for any SMS package, which was not provided to him.  It was the complainant who had defaulted in paying bills and for that reason the connection was disconnected, therefore, there was no deficiency in services on the part of OP. 

            The complainant was directed to file Rejoinder and Evidence.  Despite opportunity, complainant did not file any rejoinder or evidence by way of affidavit.  Hence, the averments made by the complainant in the complaint have not been proved.  

5.        As the complainant has failed to prove his version, this complaint is dismissed without orders to any cost. 

            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