State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027


S.C. CASE NO-FA/09/31





DATE OF FILING :21.1.09 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 10.6.09



APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :

1. M/s Vodafone Essar East Limited .

Constantia Office Complex,

11, Dr. U.N. Bramachari Street,

Kolkata-700 017.



RESPONDENTS/O.P.S : :

1 Samir Kr Sarkar.

3/42, Jatindas Nagar,

Belgharia,Kolkata- 700 026.



BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE

PRESIDENT:

MEMBER : Shri. P.K. Chattopadhyay.

MEMBER : Shri. Shankar Coari.



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr.T.Chakraborty.

Advocate.

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : In Person.








Shri Shankar Coari, Member





The present appeal has been directed against the judgement passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum North 24 Parganas, Barassat in DF case no 9/2008 wherein Ld. Dist Forum allowed the petition of complaint exparte with cost against OP No-1 thereby directing the OP to deactivate the command for call filter service of the Complainant’s Mobile along with a direction for refund of Rs. 198/- towards call filter service charges along with a further direction to refund any amount deducted towards call filter service after 1.1.08 together with a direction to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the Complainant for harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 200/- in favour of the Complainant.

2. The Complainants case before the Ld. Dist Forum in brief was that on 30.10.07 inadvertently certain commands were pressed in the Mobile Phone of the Complainant there by resulting deduction of Rs. 99/- from the prepaid plans. Subsequently, Complainant came to know that deduction was made towards call filter service, as the Complainant did not want to avail call filter service any more, he requested the OPs for deactivation of call filter service. In this regard the customer care executive assured the Complainant of deactivation within reasonable period but the same was not done thereby putting Complainant extreme inconvenience and harassment. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with such deficiency in service at the instance of the OPs the Complainant filed petition of Complainant before Ld. Dist Forum for proper redressal.

3. Inspite of notice the OPs did not appear before the Ld. District Forum and Ld. District Forum after considering the case of the Complainant was satisfied that the Complainant was able to substantive its allegations leveled against OP-1 and disposed of the petition of complaint exparte against OP No-1 thereby rejecting the case against OP No-2 thereby allowing necessary direction and compensation, the litigation cost etc as mentioned above.

4. The only moot question that revolves round the present appeal is as to whether Ld. Dist Forum was justified in disposing of the matter in the manner discussed.









DECISION WITH REASON



1. At the time of hearing it has been submitted before us on behalf of the Appellant that Ld. Dist Forum did not appreciate the fact that the Appellant was not properly noticed which has resulted the disposal of petition of complaint exparte before Ld. Dist Forum for no fault on the part of the Appellant. In this regard it has also submitted before us on behalf of the Appellant that though the Complainant could not produce any cogent and reliable evidence in support of Complainants case the Ld.Dist Forum accepted the Complainants version of the case thereby penalizing the Appellant un necessarily and without any justification at all. According to Ld. Advocate for the Appellant from the very nature of the Complainants case so far as it relates to exaggerated amount of claim tentamounts to falsity of the petition of the complaint. While concluding his submissions Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has also submitted before us that it is very much well known to all that the procedure of activation and deactivation is pure and simple computer based mechanism for which a particular person or institution should not be penalized as has been done by the Dist Forum. While criticizing the impugned judgement the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted before us that Ld. Dist Forum did not appreciate the actual state of affairs and has unnecessarily burdened the Appellant with pecuniary liability and on this score along the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.

2. We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have gone through the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgement and find that the Complainant did put up a specific case before the Ld. Dist Forum to the effect that initialy due to inadvertence the call filter service was activated by the Complainant but subsequently the Complainant made his intention quite clear to the OPs including the Appellant that he was not willing to continue with the call filter service and finally filed a complaint before OP No-1 which was duly registered by OP No-1. As the Appellant /OP did not appear before the Ld. Dist Forum Ld. Dist Forum appreciated the case of the Complainant and being satisfied about the genuinesses of the Complaint case disposed of the same in favour of the Complainant. In a case where the Complainant opted to discontinue with a particular service which according to the Complainant unnecessarily deducted some money from the mobile balance and more so when the Complainant lodged a complaint with the Appellant in writing, there was no point on the part of the Appellant to sit tight with an indifferent attitude.

3. We have duly gone through the impugned judgement and find that Ld. Dist Forum did appreciate the actual state of affairs and has practically arrived at a just and proper decision. Considering the present matter in the light of the above observation we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Ld. Dist Forum, which in our opinion should be affirmed. In the result the appeal fails. Hence, ordered that the appeal stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement is hereby confirmed.