Aman Sood (aged 28 years) son of Sh.Parveen Kuamr Sood, resident of Rajindra Estate, Moga.

Complainant

Versus

1. Vodafone through its Nodal Officer, Vikram Bains, C-141, Industrial Area, Mohali-160 071.

2. Vodafone Branch G.T.Road, Moga through its Manager.

Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla,President
Sh.J.S.Mallah, Member

Present: Sh.Arun Sood, Adv.counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Vishal Jain, Adv.counsel for the OPs.

(J.S.Chawla, President)

Sh.Aman Sood complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Vodafone through its Nodal Officer, Vikram Bains, C-141, Industrial Area, Mohali and another (herein-after referred to as ‘Vodafone’)-opposite parties directing them to disconnect the telephone connections, not to make any demand of money on account of alleged bills for the period the said connections were remained unused and also to pay compensation of Rs.80000/- on account of mental tension and harassment or any other relief to which this Forum may deem fit be granted.


2. Briefly stated, Sh.Aman Sood complainant is a ‘consumer’ having purchased seven consecutive numbers i.e 99888-50101, 99888-50102, 99888-50103, 99888-50104, 99888-50105, 99888-50106 and 99888-50107 from the OPs-Vodafone and paid Rs.3500/- as security. That the complainant was suffering some network problem, so he requested the OPs-Vodafone to disconnect the aforesaid numbers. Thereafter, the complainant sent requests through E-mail dated 5.7.2008 for disconnecting the aforesaid numbers, but to no effect. That inspite of repeated requests, the OPs-Vodafone did not disconnect the said numbers and rather raised a demand of Rs.3800/- which he deposited. Though the complainant did not use the above mentioned connections from the date of his request for disconnection, but the OPs-Vodafone raised a further demand of Rs.12000/- which is totally illegal, unjust and against the principles of natural justice. That the complainant visited the office of OPs-Vodafone time and again and requested to disconnect his connections, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Vodafone amounts to deficiency in rendering services on their part. Hence the present complaint.


3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Vodafone who appeared through Sh.Vishal Jain Advocate and filed their written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complainant has not placed the true facts before this Forum; that the connections in question have already been disconnected in the month of August/ September 2008 due to non payment of the bills; that the complainant has failed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.952.82, Rs.947.29, Rs.1658.50, Rs.496.42, and Rs.754.81 of mobile connections bearing nos.99888-50101, 99888-50102, 99888-50103, 99888-50105 and 99888-50106 respectively. Thus, an amount of Rs.4809.84 is still outstanding towards the complainant; that the complainant has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has failed to make the payment of the outstanding dues and as such the present complaint is not maintainable and that the mobile connections in question were issued in the name of family members of the complainant and that the complainant was only subscriber in respect of one connection no.99888-50103 against which an amount of Rs.1658.50 is due and recoverable. On merits, the complainant took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in preliminary objections. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Vodafone and the complaint deserves dismissal with costs.


4. To prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copies of E-mails Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 and closed his evidence.


5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Vodafone tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Ashutosh Kalia, Deputy Manager (Legal and Regulatory), copy of agreement Ex.R2, copies of agreement form Ex.R3 to Ex.R8, copy of details of calls Ex.R9, copy of details of activation Ex.R10, copy of E-mail Ex.R11 and closed the evidence of OP-Vodafone.


6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Arun Sood ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.Vishal Jain ld.counsel for OPs-Vodafone and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.


7. Sh.Arun Sood ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OPs-Vodafone has committed deficiency in service by not disconnecting his seven mobile connections. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. Firstly, the seven mobile connections were not purchased by the complainant in his individual capacity and the same were purchased by him in different names of his family members vide agreements Ex.R2 to Ex.R8. However, the complainant is subscriber of mobile connection no.99888-50103 only. Thus, the complaint filed by the complainant regarding the seven mobile connections is not maintainable.


8. For arguments sake, if it is presumed that the complaint is maintainable, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Vodafone in disconnecting the mobile connections in question. Admittedly, the complainant had sent E-mail on 5.7.2008 for disconnection of all the seven mobile connections, but the same were disconnected in August/ September 2008. The OPs-Vodafone had not charged any amount from the complainant after his request of disconnection. Though, a sum of Rs.4809.84 (detail given in Ex.R10) is due against the aforesaid seven mobile connections, but the complainant or his family members have failed to pay the same. Due to non payment of the aforesaid amount, the OPs-Vodafone was left with no option, but to de-activate the aforesaid connections. Instead of making the payment of the aforesaid dues to the OPs-Vodafone, the complainant has filed the present complaint just to pressurize them. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove that the OPs-Vodafone has committed any deficiency in service while disconnecting the aforesaid mobile connections or by not acting on his request of disconnection.


9. To prove the aforesaid assertion, the OPs-Vodafone has produced affidavit Ex.R1 of Ashutosh Kalia, Deputy Manager (Legal and Regulatory), copy of agreement Ex.R2, copies of agreement form Ex.R3 to Ex.R8, copy of details of calls Ex.R9, copy of details of activation Ex.R10, copy of E-mail Ex.R11 and we believe and rely upon the same. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit of complainant Ex.A1 and documents Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 and we discard the same.


10. Ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.


11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed.

C.C. No.32 of 3.2.2009 Decided on : 29.4.2009

1. Rajesh Kakkar working as Branch Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., SCO No. 5, First Floor, phase-1, Model Town, Opp. T.V Tower, Bathinda.
   .... Complainant
   Versus
2. The Branch Manager, Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd., The Mall, Bathinda.
3. V.M Enterprises, Authorised agent of Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd., Street No. 6, Nai Basti, Bathinda.
   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986


QUORUM:-
Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member


For the complainant : Sh. K.K Vinocha, Advocate
For the opposite parties : Exparte


O R D E R.


DR. PHULINDER PREET, MEMBER:-

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is working as Branch Manager with Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Bathinda. Opposite party No. 2 is authorized agency holder of Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. and having a branch office at Bathinda i.e. Opposite party No.1. Complainant got mobile connection No. 99889-21000 from the opposite parties with a credit limit of Rs.3,000/- and billing cycle 9th of every month to 8th of next month. He is using aforesaid connection for the last about four months and has been paying his monthly bills regularly. The due date of his bill for the month of October-November was 26.11.2008 and bill was for Rs.802/-. However, he deposited Rs.1,000/- well in time with the opposite parties. In this way, Rs. 198/- were paid in excess and were standing to his credit. On 13.12.2008, opposite party No.1 disconnected his mobile connection without giving any notice, prior intimation or providing an opportunity of being heard. He immediately talked about this illegality and deficiency in service with Customer Care of Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd., but he did not get any satisfactory reply. However, Customer Care Executive suggested him to visit Vodafone office at Bathinda for his problem. Accordingly, he approached opposite party No.1, but it did not solve his problem. Rather, he was told that reason for disconnection of the connection is non-payment of monthly bill as his billing cycle has been changed. It was a great surprise for him as he neither received any monthly bill nor credit limit of his bill had expired. He asserts that opposite parties have no right and authority to change his billing cycle at their own without his knowledge and prior notice. Complainant requested for issuance of duplicate copy of bill so that he can see the same before making the payment, but to his great surprise, it was told that duplicate copy of bill is not available and he has to deposit Rs.1613/- to activate his outgoing calls. He had to deposit the said sum under compelling circumstances though the same was not legally payable on 13.12.2008. His connection for outgoing calls remained disconnected for several hours and he could not talk to about 15 guys who are working under him. In fact, Rs.1,613/- were not payable by the complainant on 13.12.2008 and the same were payable on 26.12.2008. Therefore, he is entitled to get interest @ 12% on this amount from 13.12.2008 to 26.12.2008. After 2/3 days from 13.12.2008, complainant received bill from the opposite parties showing due date of payment as 26.12.2008 as in the same earlier cycle. In this way, he had been forced to deposit money on 13.12.2008 to activate his outgoing calls without any fault on his part. On 18.12.2008, a notice/letter was sent through UPC to opposite parties and Regional Head of opposite party No.1, but they did not give any reply. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short called the 'Act') seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him interest @ 12% P.A from 13.12.2008 to 26.12.2008 on Rs. 1,613/- and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and agony suffered by him.

1. Notice of the complaint was issued to both the opposite parties. Despite service of notice, no-one came present on their behalf, as such, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 9.3.2009.

1. In exparte evidence, complainant filed his own affidavit Ex.C.1 and also tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.7.

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at sufficient length and gone through the record minutely.
2. The learned counsel for the complainant Sh. K.K. Vinocha argued that his client enjoys the mobile connection No. 99889-21000 from opposite parties with a credit limit of Rs. 3,000/- and billing cycle of 9th of every month to 8th of next month. Complainant was in the regular use since last four months and was paying bills regularly. In the month of October-November, his due date was 26.11.2008 and bill Ex.C.2 was for Rs. 802/- for which he had deposited Rs. 1,000/- well in time with the opposite parties and Rs. 198/- stood advance in his credit. Surprisingly, on 13.12.2008, outgoing service of the mobile was disconnected without giving any notice or prior information. On approaching opposite parties, no satisfactory answer was given. However, Customer Care Executive suggested the complainant to visit Vodafone office at Bathinda. Accordingly, he approached opposite party No. 1 and explained his problem, but they also did not solve his problem. Rather, they told orally the reason of disconnection of service due to non-payment of monthly bills as his billing cycle has been changed. It was shocking to the complainant that he never made any request to change the monthly cycle nor credit limit of his bill has expired, but they have changed the cycle suo-motively without prior knowledge and notice to the user. The complainant requested the opposite parties to issue him the duplicate bill so that he can pay the same, but they refused even to issue the duplicate bill. So under compelling circumstances, he has to deposit Rs. 1,613/- to activate his outgoing calls. In this way, connection of the complainant remained disconnected for several hours and he could not work out his important meetings/official work as he is Manager and has a managerial control over 15 guys to whom he has to give valuable instructions and work plans. After about 2/3 days from 13.12.2008, complainants received bill from opposite parties showing the due date of payment as 26.12.2008 as in the same earlier cycle. In this way, complainant was unnecessarily forced to deposit money on 13.12.2008 to activate his outgoing calls without any fault on his part. He suffered great loss, mental tension and agony in performing his duties without any fault on his part. Rather, it is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, complainant is entitled to payment of compensation and costs from the opposite parties.

1. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. The complainant has reiterated his version in the complaint in his affidavit Ex.C.1. He has also placed on file the copies of bills showing the cycle from 9th of current month to 8th of next month as Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.4 with a credit limit of Rs.3,000/- and due date of payment as 26th of every month. Complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties, copy of which is Ex.C.7, but it was never replied. In bill Ex.C.6, the billing period is from 9.12.2008 to 20.12.2008 and the due date of payment is 7.1.2009 and during this period on 13.12.2008 i.e. prior to the due date of payment, his connection was disconnected for non-payment of bills. In this bill, his current charges were Rs. 841.13, previous balance as Rs.1,613.75 and payment RS. 1,613. Photocopy of payment receipt Ex.C.5 gives strength to the version of the complainant that he had to deposit Rs. 1,613/- under compelling circumstances to revive his disconnected outgoing calls. The version of complainant is strengthened from bill Ex.C.6 that his billing cycle has been changed without his request or any prior notice and knowledge. As dynamic credit limit of the complainant was Rs.3,000/- and his outstanding bill was for Rs. 1,613/- and that bill was got deposited before the due date of payment i.e. 7.1.2009 in duress to activate his outgoing calls which were disconnected for several hours. This act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused botheration and agony to the complainant. It also justifies his version that he was compelled to deposit bill on 13.12.2008 while due date was 7.1.2009. In our view, the opposite parties changed the billing cycle without any prior notice, got deposited the amount before due date and compelled the complainant to deposit the amount on 13.12.2008 to get his outgoing calls activated. In these circumstances, no other conclusion can be arrived at than the one that barring of the outgoing facility of telecommunication of complainant was arbitrary and without just and reasonable cause. This act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

1. Second point of argument was interest from 13.12.2008 to 26.12.2008. It is settled law that from interest and compensation, one can be granted. We think it a fit case for compensation. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we assess it as Rs.1,000/-.

1. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.

1. In the premises written above, complaint is partly accepted exparte against the opposite parties with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under:-
   ( i ) Pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as compensation under
   section 14(1)(d) of the Act.
   ( ii ) Compliance of this order be made within one month from the
   date of receipt of its copy, failing which the amount
   of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.

Raja Paranthaman,S/o.Mohana Rangan,
140, Kaleeswara Nagar, Kattoor, Ramnagar Post,
Coimbatore 641 009. Complainant

Vs.

1. The Manager, Vodaphone Mobile,
BPL Mobile Gallery, Avinashi Road,
Coimbatore – 641 018.

2. The Manager, Citi Bank, N.A.Cards,
No.2 club House Road, Mount Road,
Chennai 600 002. Opposite parties
---

This case coming on for final hearing before us o 29.4.09 in the presence of Mrs.Lalitha Bai, Advocate for the complainant and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, the Forum passed the following.

ORDER

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.7729 collected from the account of complainant through Citibank credit card, Rs.21,000 claimed by 2nd opposite party for the act of negligent in service, direct the 1st opposite party to pay Rs.10,000 for the negligence in service, Rs.25,000 for the negligent service of the 2nd opposite party, Rs.1500 each towards cost of this application.

The Averments in the Complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant is the permanent member of the 1st opposite party company from the date of commencement of the 1st opposite party company, Coimbatore, using the Vodafone mobile and paying the charges without any default. The first opposite party issued a credit card tie up with Citibank in the month of April 2006, without any requisition from the complainant. The complainant came to know only on 4.8.06 after receiving the statement of account from BPL. The complainant immediately contacted the first opposite party and paid the amount and requested the first opposite party to send back the amount collected from the Citibank credit card facilities account belonging to the complainant to avoid unnecessary litigations. The complainant also requested the 1st opposite party not to collect the amount from the 2nd opposite party’s bank and the complainant is ready to settle the amount due to the 1st opposite party without fail. But the 1st opposite party again collected the amount for about 3 months through the Citibank credit card without the permission and knowledge of the complainant. The 1st opposite party has got no right to recover the amount without consent of the complainant from the 2nd opposite party.


2. The complainant on 30.7.08 received a notice from the Lok Adalath Committee which directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.17231 due to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant is not liable to pay any amount and the claim made by the 2nd opposite party is not maintainable. The act of the o1st opposite party is negligent in service. Further the 2nd opposite party also without any instruction from the complainant paid the amount as per request made by the 1st opposite party, which is also an act of negligent in service. So both have committed negligence in service and both are liable to pay compensation. Hence this complaint.

3. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A8 was marked and the opposite party remained absent and set exparte.

The point for consideration is
Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in
service? If so what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE NO.1:

4. The case of the complainantis that he is a permanent member of the 1st opposite party company and using the Vodafone mobile phone and paying the charges without any delay. The further case of the complainant is that without his consent and knowledge, the first opposite party is recovering the amount from the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party also without intimation, instruction and consent of the complainant has paid the amount to the 1st opposite party.

5. Ex.A1 is the letter from the 1st opposite party and Ex.A2 is the statement dt.4.8.06,as per this statement on 27.7.06 the first opposite party collected Rs.2801 from the 2nd opposite party. Ex.A3 is a mobile bill dt.27.7.06. Ex.A5 is the notice dated 30.7.08 sent by 2nd opposite party to the complainant requesting the complainant to appear on 9.8.08 before Lok Adalath. Ex.A6 is the legal notice dt.16.6.08 and Ex.A8 is the credit card bill dated for a period 27,6.08 to 26.9.08. These documents will prove that the 1st opposite party had recovered the amount from the 2nd opposite party without the consent and knowledge. The 2nd opposite party also without intimation or consent of the complainant has paid the amount to the 1st opposite party. Both opposite parties have not considered the request of the complainant but started collecting and sending money for 3 more months. Not only that the 2nd opposite party directed the complainant to appear before the Lok Adalath and direct the complainant to deposit Rs.17,231. Hence we are of the view the first opposite party has no right to recover the amount without the consent of complainant and 2nd opposite party has no business to pay the amount to the 1st opposite party without the consent or knowledge of the complainant. Hence both the opposite parties have committed negligence in service. Hence both are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

5. In the result, we direct the 1st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.7729 collected from the account of the complainant through Citibank credit card, direct both opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 each to the complainant for the negligent in service, and to pay a sum of Rs.500 each towards the cost of the complaint within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order U/s. 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

P.K.Hemachander,

S/o.P.B.K.Krishnamachary,

No.49, White Betal Street,

Tiruchirappalli-620 008. …. Complainant



- Versus -

1) The Authorised Officer,

M/s.Vodafone Essar South Ltd.,

Vodafone Store, Sarodhan Complex,

Heber Road, Opp.to District Court,

Tiruchirappalli-620 001.



2) The Authorised Officer,

M/s.Vodafone Essar South Ltd.,

Vodafone Store, 222, TTK Road,

Near Sankara Hall, Chennai-18. … Opposite parties



This complaint coming on for hearing before us on 19th day May, 2009 in the presence of Thiru S.Martin, Counsel for Complainant, Thiru C.Muralidharan, Counsel for Opposite Parties and the Complainant’s Counsel having made endorsement, this Forum passed the following:



ORDER

Thiru Vannai Aranganathan, ( Member I )



Complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.



The complaint is prayed for directing the opposite party to refund Rs.3,137/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 18-09-08 till the date of realization, to pay Rs.50,000/- for damages along with cost of the proceedings.



In view of endorsement F.S.recorded. Complaint dismissed as it not pressed.

Ismail, S/o.Mohammad,

Badakkan House, near Koya Masjid, } Complainant

Athinhal, Po.Manikoth, Ajanur Village,

(Adv. T.K.Rajan, Kasaragod)



1. The Manager, Dynamic Associates, } Opposite parties

Vodafone mini store,

Opp.Kailas Theater, Kanhangad.


2. The Branch Manager,

Vodafone, Down town Complex,

Thalap, Kannur.
O R D E R

Complainant paid Rs.1000/- to opposite party No.1 on 6-11-07 to obtain a mobile phone connection with a fancy No.9745323232. But insipte of the assurance to provide the said connection within 24 hours it was not activated. Hence the complaint claiming compensation and cost.

2. Opposite party No.1 eventhough appeared but not filed any version. Opposite party No.2 filed version. According to opposite party No.2 the charges for a fancy Number was Rs.5000/- and customer has paid Rs.1000/-without disclosing the fancy number required by him. If complainant pays Rs.5000/- with other necessary charges then opposite party No.2 could provide the said number. The attempt of the complainant is to get a fancy number without requisite payments. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. Opposite party No.2 is ready to refund the amount of Rs.1000/- paid by the complainant that he remitted for the fancy number.

3. Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what is stated in the complaint. Exts A1 to A4 marked. One witness on the side of complainant examined as PW2. No evidence adduced by the opposite parties.

4. According to the complainant he and his friend Muhajir approached opposite party No.1 to get the mobile connection with fancy number. PW2 deposed that he remitted Rs.500/- as refundable deposit and Rs.1000/- towards the charges for fancy number. Accordingly he got a fancy number 9745232323 and that was activated within 24 hours.

5. According to PW1 he deposited Rs.300/- as nonrefundable amount and Rs.1000/- towards the allotment of the fancy number. The fancy number he opted was 9745323232. But the opposite parties did not activate and claimed a further sum of Rs.4000/- for the said fancy number.

6. The learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 Sri.Ramesh argued that the pricing of the fancy number is exclusively a discretion of the opposite parties and the customer cannot insist for the fancy number for a price according to his choice.

7. The above contention is not acceptable since as deposed by PW2 he got a fancy number by depositing only Rs.1000/- and opposite party has not produced any document to show that more that Rs.1000/- is collected for allotting the fancy number to PW2. If so, demanding Rs.5000/- for a fancy number that is resembling the fancy number of PW2 is an unfair trade practice.

8. Here we are mainly concerned with the proposition whether the fancy number of a mobile phone, a virtual product is such a commodity which can be sold or provided by the service provider by fixing a price at their whim or does any service provider having a choice to price it more than a price at which such a product is provided to other customer and if it is so whether such practice comes within the mischief of unfair trade practice.

9. In this case the opposite parties provided a fancy number 9745232323 to PW2 by accepting a deposit of only Rs.1000/-. But a resembling fancy number 9745323232 is denied to the complainant alleging that he has not deposited the required amount. The opposite parties have not produced any document to show that Rs.5000/- is the price fixed for the fancy number at the time when the applicant opted the said fancy number. On the other hand Ext.A1 receipt shows the proposed fancy number that the complainant intended to avail. Ext.A1 is not a receipt for a part payment or payment of advance towards the price of the fancy number. Hence the sale of the fancy number is complete when Ext.A1 is issued to the complainant. The sum shown in Ext.A1 is the price for which such a fancy number was ordinarily sold as evidenced from the version of PW2. Now again demanding an additional price for a virtual product that is already sold to a customer is definitely an unfair trade practice.

Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to provide the complainant the mobile connection having the fancy number 9745323232 without any additional payment. Opposite parties further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards the compensation for the loss hardship and mental agony he suffered with a cost of Rs.2000/-. In case of inability to provide the fancy number opposite party shall refund Rs.1000/- collected from the complainant with 12% interest from the date of acceptance of the amount i.e 6-11-2007 with the compensation and costs above mentioned.

K. Manjoj Kumar, S/o. K. Adireddy, age 27 years, Occ: Private Employee R/o. H.No.5-6-568, Kapuwada, Karimnagar – 505 001.



…Complainant

1. Vodafone Ltd., C-48, Okhal Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110 020.

2. Vodafone Essar South Ltd., 6th Floor, Varun towers-II, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500 016.

3. Vodafone Store, Rep. by Manager, Opp: Police Station-II, Mukarampura, Karimnagar – 505 002.
… Opposite parties

::ORDER::

1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with costs of the complaint.


2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant has taken Cell Phone connection from the opposite parties bearing Cell No.996677988 one year back and since then paying the bills regularly. He further submits that he did not receive the monthly bills at the address due to which he is unable to pay the bills. He has informed the opposite parties to send the monthly bills on his correct address, then only he will pay the bills, but instead of sending the bills the opposite parties disconnected the service. In the month of November 2008 his father expired and due to disconnected of Cell Phone he could not inform his relatives about the death and he has to spend Rs.300/- to make calls through public booth.

As the opposite parties disconnected the supply without serving the bills properly the opposite parties committed deficiency of service, hence he claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant filed copies of the mails received by him and sent to the opposite parties. The complainant prayed for an order to award compensation and costs.


3. The opposite parties filed counter admitting that the complainant is their customer having Mobile connection no.9966779988. The complainant made a false claim that the opposite parties are not sending the monthly bills to the correct address due to which he could not pay the bills. Infact the opposite parties are sending the bills to the addressed furnished by the complainant in his application and he paid the bills regularly till August 2008. Since the complainant failed to pay the bill amount covered by Bill Dt: 1.10.2008 his service connection with outgoing facility is disconnected and subsequently the total service connection was disconnected.

Whenever the complainant sent mails, the opposite parties used to respond and there is no negligence “or” deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. On 29.10.2008 the complainant sent a mail on the opposite parties informing them that the courier service is not delivering the bills properly and stated that his connection is activated. The opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.


4. The complainant filed his Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint and filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of the death Certificate of complainant’s father. Ex.A2 is the mail from opposite party addressed to complainant Dt: 29.10.2008. Ex.A3 is the mail from complainant sent to opposite party Dt: 29.10.2008. Ex.A4 & A5 are the mails from complainant sent to opposite party Dt: 27.10.2008. ex.A6 & A7 are the mails from opposite parties sent to complainant Dt: 15.10.2008, 14.10.2008 respectively. Ex.A8 & A9 are the bills for Rs.1,070/- Dt: 13.9.2008, for Rs.800/- Dt: 18.8.2008 in the name of complainant.


5. The opposite parties filed the documents which are marked as Ex.B1 to B8. Ex.B1 is the Xerox copy of Fresh Certificate of Incorporation Consequent upon Change of Name. Ex.B2 to B4 are the copies of summary of current charges Dt: 1.10.2008. Ex.B5 to B8 are the Bill Cycles Dt: 10.09.2008, 11.10.2008, 7.11.2008, 6.12.2008 issued by Vaishnavi Associates, Karimnagar.



6. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, if so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?



7. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties disconnected his service connection without proper service of monthly Cell Phone bills. He sent several mails under Ex.A2 to A7 informing the opposite parties about the non-receipt of the bills. As per the admitted facts stated by both the parties the complainant has taken mobile connection from the opposite parties and till August 2008 he paid the bills regularly. When the complainant did not pay the bill amount in respect of the bill Dt: 1.10.2008 the opposite parties disconnected his service connection. The complainant contended that the opposite parties did not deliver the Cell Phone bill inspite of his request.



8. There is no dispute that the complainant has received the bills till August 2008 on the same address and he paid the amounts. Ex.B5 & B6 filed by the opposite parties, the documents relating to bill cycles are proving that the complainant has received the bills for Mobile Account No.1516869 for the months of September, October. Ex.B7 is proving that he rejected to receive the bill for the month November 2008. But he received the bill for the month of December 2008 under Ex.B8.

These documents clinchingly proving that the allegations made by the complainant that he has not received the bills regularly, as such he could not pay the amount is false. It is mainly contended that due to disconnection of the service in the month of November 2008 he could not inform about the death of his father and he was bound to made calls from public phones and thus the opposite parties committed deficiency of service. As such he entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- towards complainant.



9. As already referred about the opposite party sending the bills regularly under the said documents, he himself rejected the bill for the month of October, 2006 and the opposite parties waited till 3.11.2008 for payment and thereafter stopped the outgoing calls i.e. from 3.11.2008 inspite of that complainant did not choose to pay amount as such there is no other go for the opposite parties to suspend incoming calls also on 11.11.2008.

All these events coupled with the documents filed by the opposite parties clinchingly established that there is no deficiency of service and if really the complainant intends to continue disconnection he ought to have diligent in payment of the bill. It is also normal in case of service of Cell Phone the consumers will receive messages about the payment of bills and it is not the case of the complainant that he has not received any such messages in his phone. Ex.A6 & A7 are the mails sent by the opposite parties to the complainant Dt: 15.10.2008, 14.10.2008 respectively and Ex.A4 & A5 are mails sent by the complainant Dt: 27.10.2008.

These documents are proving that the complainant had sufficient knowledge about the demand for payment of the bills. Inspite of paying the bill he protested the mail messages issued by the opposite parties on the ground that he should receive the bills to his home and evaded the payment of false protest. Therefore, knowing fully well the complainant has not chosen to pay the bill amount and the opposite parties rightly disconnected the service since the complainant himself being the defaulter cannot contend that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties he is entitled for any compensation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.


10. In the result the complaint dismissed with costs of Rs.500/-

Daljit Kaur aged 45 years wife of Sh. Bhupinder Pal Singh, r/o 1245, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana.



…..Complainant.

Versus



1- M/s Vodafone Essar South Limited, Regd. Office at C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 India through its Managing Director.

2- M/s Vodafone Essar South Limited, Plot no.C-131, Eltop, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali-160071, Punjab, India through its Regional Manager.

3- M/s Vodafone Essar South Limited, Lodhi Complex, Mall Road, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

……Opposite parties.

O R D E R



T.N.VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1- This complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is filed by the complainant, qua his mobile connection bearing account no.98888-86420. His case is that had purchase this number through Rs.850/- Plan for two years, providing free call facility on outgoing calls to another Vodafone no.98888-88323. He had been paying regularly bills qua these both phones. But in 2008, opposite party issued notice, demanding excess amount of Rs.617.86, which was compelled to be deposited under protest, vide cheque dated 14.2.2008. Qua the same amount, opposite party again sent him bill and then contacted opposite party on 25.2.2008, 28.7.2008, 8.4.2008, 15.4.2008, 17.3.2008, but they did not solve the matter and postponed the same. Consequently, opposite party are liable to refund Rs.617.86 taken illegally from and has also claimed compensation of Rs.4.50 lacs along with Rs.15000/- litigation costs.

2- Opposite party in reply pleaded that complainant had taken a tariff plan, amounting to Rs.1399/- on one time rental payment for 24 billing cycles, as per agreement dated 6.10.2005. She paid Rs.850/- as total amount and Rs.850/- was taken on discounted rates. Complainant had taken mobile for Talk-149 Plan. On expiry of plan period, the monthly rental was Rs.149/- and Rs.25/- on account of clip charges. Complainant enjoyed uninterrupted services from 14.2.2005 till February, 2008. Then she became defaulter to the tune of Rs.617.86 which was demanded by sending legal notice dated 14.2.2008. Complainant herself faulted, so no entitled to file any complaint or seek any relief. There is no deficiency in service on their part.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- Though complainant in support of her allegations, has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and also letters Ex.C2, Ex.C5, Ex.C6 and Ex.C8 to Ex.C11 in support of the claim. Along with, has also filed Ex.C4 copy of notice dated 13.2.2008 issued by opposite party to hear, demanding an amount of Rs.617.86 from her. Said amount stands deposited by the complainant with opposite party, for refund of which, complaint is filed, on assertion that she was not bound to pay the same and it was taken forcibly under protest from her.

5- Whereas, defence of opposite party is that connection under plan, by paying advance rent of two years Rs.850/-, was taken and on expiry of period of two year4s, she was liable to pay rental charges of Rs.149/- and Rs.25/- per month, which was demanded and paid by her, so there is no deficiency in service on their part.

6- After going through the material placed on the record by opposite party, we find substance in their defence. Ex.R2 is copy of application vide which complainant opted for tariff plan and paid advance rent of Rs.999/-. The tariff plan enrolment form Ex.R1 shows that it was advance rental option on Talk-149 Plan. Complainant out of two, ticked for the Plan of Rs.1399/- on one time payment, specifying no rent for 24 billing cycles. This happened on 6.10.2005. So, means under Talk-149 Plan, she was not liable to pay any rental during 24 months of the plan.

It was after expiry of the plan period that opposite party claimed rental charges from the complainant, vide their notice Ex.C4 dated 13.2.2008. This demanded amount of rent was deposited by the complainant. So, payment as raised by opposite party was justified and legal. It was not arbitrarily demand raised by them. Consequently, we feel that there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party, nor they illegally charged the complainant. Hence, finding no merits in the complaint, the same is dismissed.

E.P.Phalgunan,

Erinhikkal Partammal House, Complainant

P.O.Kizhunna,

Kannur 7.



1. Anaranth.C.V, Staff, NIBIN

Sun Glow Solution,

Adithya Tower.Opp.RTO Office,

Kannur 1.

2. Premjith.E.J,

Channel Sales Manger,

Hutchison Esar Cellular Ltd.,

5th floor, KVR Tower,

Near Mahatham Mandir,

South Basar, Kannur 2.

3. Roani,

Hutchison Essar Cellular Ltd. Opposite parties

5th floor, KVR Tower,

Near Mahatma Mandir,

South Basar, Kannur 2

4. Hutch Shop,

South Bazar,

Opp.Har Interiors,

Kannur 2.

5.Praven,

Hutch Connections

(Rep. by Adv.B.P.Saseendranfor Ops1 to4)



O R D E R

Smt.KP.Preethakumari, Member



This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.38, 000/- as compensation.

Complainant’s case is that he has a prepaid Hutch mobile connection from 25.5.06 and had used the same connection for six months without any difficulties. But he had received many calls from opposite parties to change the prepaid connection to post paid connection, for which they offered a bag and free calls from Hutch to Hutch. So on 21.11.06 the complainant has visited opposite party’s shop and they represented that it is the last day of offer. So the complainant had purchased the post paid connection by giving Rs.300/- and the same was activated only after two days. On 25.11.06 the opposite parties had visited the complainant’s house for address verification.On that day opposite parties made clear that there s only one offer, i.e. Free calls from Hutch to Hutch and all other offers are not true. So the complainant requested the opposite parties to change his post paid connection to pre-paid connection.

On 5.11.06, the post paid connection was disconnected and hence on the next day the complainant approached 1st opposite party and he promised that his connection will be changed to pre-paid connection. After two days the complainant again approached 1st opposite party but he represented that the complainant has to approach 4th opposite party. But 4th opposite party told that he has known nothing about the re-connection. So 1st opposite party again wanted to approach the other opposite parties. So the complainant had contacted 3rd opposite party and 3rd opposite party wanted him to sign some blank white papers for which complainant is not willing. But he has not received the reconnection of his pre-paid connection. He had loosed some of his contract work due to the deficient service of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

On receiving notice from the Forum, all the opposite parties are appeared through Adv.B.P.Saseendran and filed their version stating the following contentions that the opposite parties provide normal acceptable standard of service to its subscribers as per the agreed terms and conditions of subscriptions signed by the subscriber and the bills are automatically generated as against the usage charges and tariff plan opted by subscribers. There is no disturbance from the opposite parties office. The complainant on his own choice opted for the new scheme and have taken new connection. There is no misrepresentation fraud or deception as alleged by the complainant.

The prepaid connection with number 9846565009 has been deactivated due to lapse of time of pre-paid connection on 23.11.06. The complainant ought to have re-charged the connection by the above date. On non re-charging on expiry of time, the same has been disconnected. It is not correct to say that there were promises to change the scheme to old scheme and had no direction to approach any other office. It is also not correct that the calls from the complainant were served by the customer care. There were no demands for signing stamp paper by any one related to the opposite party. The statement about defamation, loss of contracts and need for paying damages are utter false. The post paid connection cannot be activated due to negative credit verification report which is mandatory to be positive as per central govt. guidelines and licence conditions. The said stipulations has been insisted bylaw as there is every chance of misuse of mobile connection for terrorists and disruption activities antisocial activities and the like. On negative verification report, the activation should not be effected or the connection should be disconnected with immediate effect if under any circumstances any activation is already affected. So the complainant is not eligible for any compensation and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite aprties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony ofPW1 and Exts.A1 to A7.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

The complainant had produced Ext.A3 (a) and (b) which shows that the complainant had purchased a prepaid Hutch connection during April 2006 having No.9846565009 and during November he had converted it as post paid connection. As per Ext.A2 the date of activation is 21.11.06. But according to the complainant the post paid sim card was activated only on 23.11.06. But complainant’s case is that on 25.11.06 itself he had approached the 1st opposite party and requested to transfer his connection from post paid to prepaid connection. But he has not produced any document to prove this contention. But he deposed before the Forum that post paid connectionsFSp-¡p-t]mÄ agreement H¸n-«vsIm-Sp-¯n-«p-*v. Fs¶ opposite party’s office \nÀ_-Ôn-¨p. The other case of the complainant is that his post paid connection was disconnected on 5.12.06. But the Ext.A1 (a) and (b) is the bill from 16.11.06 to 15.12.06. But as per Ext.A2 the date of activation of post paid is only on 21.11.06. This it shows that there s some truth in the complainant’s averment. So the words of the complainant that on 25.11.06 itself he has approached the opposite party to change the postpaid connection to pre-paid connection can be accepted.

The opposite party admitted in their version that the prepaid connection has been de-activated on 23.11.06 due to lapse of time of pre-paid connection and the reason for non-activation the post paid connection is due to negative credit verification report. This means that opposite party he admits that he never activated the post paid connection. Then the question arise why the opposite party had issued the Ext.A1( b) bill. This itself is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. From the above discussion it is seen that the complainant has no liability to pay the Ext.A1 bill. So we are of the opinion that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have shown deficiency for which they are liable. But the complainant has not produced any document to substantiate his contention that he has lost Rs.38, 000/-. It is true that he has incurred some loss for which we assess the compensation as Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- as cost.

In the result the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as compensation with Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order against the opposite parties 1 and 2 under the provisions of consumer protection act.

Respected Sir/ Madam,

As per the above subject, the vodafone has changed my prepaid plan of lifelong free sms to 1rp per sms. This is a mistake committed from their side and I have already complained 7 times from the past 1week and they are yet to correct it.

Each time they say they would correct it within 24 hrs and they have not shown any progress in this matter. When I ask them to connect me to their seniors also they put me on hold for more than 10min but still they have not taken the responsibility to correct their mistake. I am facing this problem since 6th of November 2009 and since then I have complained 7 times. Even today, ie 12th November 2009 I complained twice but no positive response.

Hence I request you to help me out in this matter as soon as possible.

Thanking You

Regards

Namratha

Dear Sir/Madam,

I'm Gurpreet Singh Add : RL-29, Ganga Ram Vatika, Tilak Nagar, New Dehi - 110018, I am using your number 9999914377, 9953002667, 9899022802 & ad-on numer new purchased from BIGTEL IT Solutions (P) Ltd., B-103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110 020 Ph. 40523379, 9953902911 (Mr. Pawan : 9953902944 Team leader, Mr. Ravi : 9953902432 Executive) Dated 01-12-2009 Serial No. 29588 Amount security deposit Rs 250.00 Cash.

COMPLAINTS :

1. I have Number 9953002667 Plan 249 Bumper your executive told me this is the best plan with discount 350 mnts to all networks (mobile & landline)

2. Same commitment to my second number 9999914377 & 9899022802

3. One of represntive of Naraina Outlet gave me information about a new plan 345 for 9999914377 in which 750 mnts free to all network (Mobile & Landline) & plan was change last month only.

4. For a new ad-on connection i got receipt from BIGTEL IT Solutions (P) Ltd., B-103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110 020 Ph. 40523379, 9953902911 (Mr. Pawan : 9953902944 Team leader, Mr. Ravi : 9953902432 Executive) Dated 01-12-2009 Serial No. 29588 Amount security deposit Rs 250.00 Cash & the number mention on the receipt is not working & i have already logged the complaint number 2126374052. their commitment was free 7000 seconds all network local & std (mobile & landline) Plan 199 Call one paisa.

My two number is one and half years old (9999914377 & 9953002667)

Last two month my wife observe that discounted amount as per the commitment was less. I call to customer care tonight 00:15am 03-12-09. they have given me the correct information & transfer the call to floor manager (00.35am) but no solution my call put on hold from 00.44 am & call disconnected by you floor manager at 1:05am with any information.

So kindly let me know what kind of commitment i should expect from VODAFONE SERVICES

--
GURPREET SINGH
+91 999 99 143 77

We have been facing problems in getting our tariff plans changed in Vodafone. Ours is a corporate account and as per the discussion with customer care we had instructed Vodafone to make the necessary changes. However even after repeated follow-ups thru mail and direct discussion with customer care no action has been taken till date. Last week we had written to the team leader who probably is not interested in getting our plans changed as this is the most expensive plan provided by Vodafone.

As per the advice on this website we have escalated the issue to the nodal officer as per the list available on the web. Plz. let us know the further course of action to take care of this situation.

We are enclosing the communications sent by us to Vodafone. Pls. advise.

C.C.No.38 of 2008
BETWEEN:
R.G.Srinadh Chowdary,

S/o.Subba Rao,

Resident of 10th line,

Dwaraka Nagar,

Guntur. … Complainant
AND

1. Kottapalli Kishore,

Manager/Office Incharge of Voda Phone Office,

Opp. Big “C” Point,

4/7, Brodiepet, Guntur.

2. The Manager,

Customer Care Services,

Voda phone Essar Limited,

Peninsula Corporation Bank,

Ganapatrao Kadam Marg,

Mumbai – 400 013. … Opposite parties

This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 05-11-09 in the presence of Sri M.Sitaram Das, Advocate for complainant and of Sri U.V.Subrahmanyam, Advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to activate the complainant’s cell service and for compensation of Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards costs.

The averments of complaint in brief are as follow:

The opposite party is one of the cellular services in India. The complainant has applied for postpaid connection to 1st opposite party. On 23-11-07, the 1st opposite party has received Rs.300/- towards deposit and sanctioned No.9966880047 Sim No.89911300201603000. The 1st opposite party agreed to activate the card on or before 27-11-07, but did not activate the cell phone violating conditions of postpaid Tarrif System. When the complainant approached office of 1st opposite party, they did not give proper reply and the complainant requested to activate cell on or before 01-12-07. But the 1st opposite party has not fulfilled the service condition. It is stated by 1st opposite party that since the complainant being an advocate, they have no interest to activate sim due to recovery problem. The complainant got issued a registered legal notice dt.05-01-08 to both the opposite parties to activate the cell. The 2nd opposite party received the same and kept quite. There is no response from 1st opposite party. Due to said attitude of opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental agony. Hence, the complaint.

The 1st opposite party filed its version, which was adopted by 2nd opposite party, which is in brief as follows:

The allegations mentioned in complaint are not true and correct and the complainant to put to strict proof of same. The complainant applied for postpaid connection to office of 1st opposite party on 23-11-07, the 1st opposite party has received Rs.300/- towards deposit and sanctioned number 9966880047 sim No.89911300201603000 which is true and correct. The allegation that 1st opposite party agreed to activate the card on or before 27-11-07, but did not activate cell phone and violated the condition of postpaid Tarrif System are not true and correct. The complainant was staying in a bachelor accommodation in one single room. The customer is not available at the time, when the staff of opposite party went to address of complainant for verification. The sister of complainant, who was present by the time, did not confirm any details of complainant. It is further submitted that before activating mobile number, staff has to confirm all the particulars personally and this has to be done as per the guidelines to avoid misusing of cell phone. This is the obligation imposed on opposite party. But the complainant instead of cooperating with verification staff filed this complaint with baseless allegations.

Verification staff consisting of Mr.Lakshmi Kishore (collections) and Mr.Kishore Kothapalli (store Incharge, Guntur) have personally verified the address but the complainant was not ready to provide any information with regard to his family details. The opposite party providing services to all categories of people, which includes advocates. The allegation that complainant being advocate, the opposite party has no interest to activate the sim due to recovery problem etc. is created for the purpose of this complaint. Moreover, the opposite party clearly informed the complainant that unless relevant information was given to them, the opposite party is unable to activate connection. Inspite of that, the complainant refused to furnish information. As such, the opposite party is unable to activate the connection of complainant and ready to refund deposit amount of Rs.300/- to complainant. But the complainant did not collect the deposited amount. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

The complainant filed affidavit in support of his complaint. The opposite party also filed affidavit, which is adopted by 2nd opposite party. The complainant filed additional affidavit denying the allegations of opposite party that he was staying in a bachelor accommodation in one single room and when the staff of opposite party came to address of complainant for verification, the sister of complainant, who was present did not confirm any details of complainant that again verification staff consisting of Mr.Lakshmi Kishore (collections) and Mr.Kishore Kothapalli (store Incharge, Guntur) have personally verified the address but complainant was not ready to provide any information with regard to his family details and also stated that they never visited the address of complainant and not verified the particulars.

In support of case of complainant Ex.A1 to A8 are marked. On behalf of opposite party Ex.B1 is marked.

Ex.A1 is register notice got issued by complainant to opposite party, Ex.A2 is returned register notice addressed to 1st opposite party, Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgement of 2nd opposite party, Ex.A4 is the sim card cover, Ex.A5 is copy of driving license, Ex.A6 is notice of Income Tax Department to complainant showing income particulars and other details, Ex.A7 is postal cover from National Insurance Company delivered to complainant showing address of complainant, Ex.A8 is the sim card.

Ex.B1 is instructions of Government of India, Ministry Communication and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications dt.22-11-06.

Now the points for consideration are that

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled?

POINTS 1 & 2

It is not in dispute that the complainant has applied for postpaid connection to 1st opposite party and that he has paid Rs.300/- on 23-11-07, then the opposite party sanctioned No. 9966880047 Sim No.89911300201603000. It is the case of complainant that the 1st opposite party agreed to activate the card on or before 27-11-07 but did not activate his cell phone and that he approached opposite party and requested to activate on or before 01-12-07 but opposite party did not activate the same.

It is the case of opposite party that before activating sim they have to verify customer details as per instructions received by Government under Ex.B1 and that they have deputed their personnel for verification and that on verification they reported that the complainant is residing in a bachelor accommodation in a single room and that the complainant is not available at that time and that his sister did not confirm particulars and as the complainant failed to furnish required information they could not activate the cell.

It is further case of complainant that none of the personnel of opposite party came for verification to his address and the allegations that he did not furnish required information is not true.

The opposite party did not file any evidence in support of its case that they have sent their personnel to the address of complainant and they verified at the address of complainant. The complainant has issued register notice under Ex.A1 to 1st opposite party copy of which was marked to 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party received the same and did not choose to give any reply. The 1st opposite party refused to receive register notice issued by complainant. In absence of any proof that they have deputed personnel to get required information, it can be concluded that the opposite parties are not interested in activating the cell phone of complainant. Ex.A5, A6 and A7 further supports the case of complainant that he was residing in the address given to opposite parties and that he has certain income as shown in Ex.A6.

In view of facts and circumstances of case, we find that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, since they failed to activate the cell of complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get activated the cell phone on providing required information to opposite parties.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are directed to activate the cell phone of complainant with the number already given to him and if the same is not available, activate the same with other number on production of required information and particulars by the complainant.

2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- towards compensation to the complainant and Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation.

3. The above orders shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amounts ordered in item No.2 shall carry interest @ 9 % p.a. till the date of realization.

Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 7th day of November, 2009.

Hi Nidhi,
I Pravesh kumar Thakur and using Vodafone Postpaid number +919953155656 for last 4
to 5 years

but since last two months I have been harassed by Vodafone customer care regardless
of my bill payment. I

have been regular in my billing since these years but only last two months due to
some personal reason (bad health of my father)

not been able to pay my bill before due date. For last month too I paid fine of RS
100, but actually this is not the problem problem

Starts with last year.Plz find the events and how Vodafone customer care did no
respond.

An amount of CASH Rs 625 for the month Sep deposited at Vodafone store no
VS-PA-12009 @ Patiala.

Vodafone customer care executive kept me reminding amount non payment of Bill.

Outgoing call barred on my number although I had made payment of the billed amount.

On talking to Vodafone customer care I found that the billing has not been reflected
on their side.

On talking to Vodafone store I came to know that he has made through on his side now
Vodafone has to make sure that the bill payment is received.

I don't know how but finally I received a message that Vodafone has received my
payment and on talking to customer care my outgoing was un-barred.

I requested the Customer care team to please make sure that the reason should be
identified and shall not be repeated in future.

Last bill I received was a payment of RS 725 and made payment of RS 700 through the
same Vodafone store.

Again in spite of payment of my bill my outgoing calls is barred and customer care
told me that they have not received the payment.

They asked me for receipt no which I have provided to them PV-211883

From 6th nov to till date I continuously receive their calls asking for the details
which I have provided to almost 10 time to almost 10 executives I don't

Remember how many request no I have got but I have noted one which I am providing it
to you 2101604712.

Still my numbers outgoing is barred and I am frustrated with this that in spite of
payment of my bill I am cut with outside world and in time when I need It most since
my father is not well. I have to go to some STD booth to make a call or borrow
somebody's mobile to do so.

I have requested so many times to these executives to just open my number so that I
may be able to talk to the Vodafone store but my request have been refused either by
disconnecting their phones or simply saying that we are not suppose to do this.

I have received a message from Vodafone regarding that my Vodafone bill payment have
been received and my outstanding bill is some 500 bucks with due date of 29th Nov.
this I received on 17th NOV at 21:03:13PM and I again talked to your customer care
executive today 18th NOV regarding this and he just acknowledged me by disconnecting
the call
The present status is that still my numbers outgoing is barred???
Please give me one good reason why to continue with my present Vodafone number??? To
be very frank if I am still communicating is only that my number is in the business
circle and if the number portability was on I would have dropped this Vodafone
within no time.
I am very unhappy with this Vodafone care executive support although I want to
appreciate the technical people who try to provide the seamless coverage round the
clock
but what is the advantage if my cell is blocked like this .. With a simple command
of some stupid people sitting and not ready to listen.
Please let me know how you can help me by the end of today (EOB) otherwise I will
have no option other than drop the Vodafone number and go for some other
Operator's number.

BR
Pravesh kumar Thakur

+919953155656

Hi Sir,

I am Prajyot S Chinchansure from Bangalore i have
recharged my vodafone number on 15th august with RS.148 world calling card,
after recharging the RS.135 balance should have to come i have got the
balance as RS 00:00 to my account i have given a complaint regarding the
same but the vodafone customer care not giving any response daily im calling
to customer care from past 2months but they are always telling that
tommarow it will resolve im mentioning the recharge details below,please
check and do needful.

Transaction id:KK9189146081
recharged on 15th aug at 11:55:36am

My mail ID: Prajyot.chinchansure@wnipl.com
Mobile No.: 9739467007


Regards,
Prajyot.S.Chinchansure

Dear Vodafone,

My number is 982066 7628

My full name is Pasham Alwani.

Address is 6 Candy House, Mandlik Road, Colaba , Mumbai 400 001 ( Though on
the bill they say it's 400 005, but it's actually 1 )

Date of birth:5th December 1987

Alternative number : 2285 3313

Now that I am done with all your formalities, let me begin.

To say that I am angry would truly be an enormous understatement.

I have been a user of your blackberry services for almost 4 months now.

I am using your 499 Plan for my Blackberry.
*Every month my bill ranges between 1000 to 1500. NEVER MORE.
*
My usage in these 4 months has remained consistent. I use my 1 email
account, Gchat, MSN and Blackberry Messenger. I browse once in a while. But
my main usage is the chat applications.

Again, I repeat, my usage has been consistent every month.


However, according to you, I have some how increased my usage by almost 10
fold.

I received a message last evening claiming that my bill is Rs. 11, 000. YES,
* ELEVEN THOUSAND. *

So, Vodafone, try and imagine my reaction to this, when my bill is never
over Rs, 1500.

Intertwined with this problem is my bigger grouse with the personnel at your
call centre. "Happy to Help" they claim. It seems to me that you guys only
employ the imbeciles of the lot. No semblance of any sense is present. *They're
all rude and arrogant. They enjoy keeping people on hold for 15 - 20
minutes, THEN JUST HANGING UP.*

I spoke to a gentleman last night, Mr. Samir Patel; who claimed to be some
sort of supervisor at the accounting department who told me that my internet
usage the last month had been 60,000 KB.
Now tell me, when I am repeatedly saying that my usage has been consistent (
In lay-man terms it means my usage has been the very same) how can my usage
suddenly rise up so much.


When i suggested there could be some discrepancy in the system, I was met
with more rudeness and everyone seems so adamant that Vodafone could never
make such a mistake. However, this problem has occurred with some other
people I know who have now switched to other service providers. I have been
an Orange/ Hutch/ Vodafone loyalist for almost 6 years now. But now I'm very
tempted to switch to one of the others.

If you are providing unlimited Blackberry services at 1099, how in God's
name can i possibly use 10 times that amount?! When again, I repeat, I have
been using the same applications that I have as in the last 3 months.

Anyway, this Mr. Patel, promised (as they always do) to get back to me today
with the problem.

I was out for work today, and had finished an errand. I tried to call my
driver, but obviously you deemed it right to cut off my outgoing on my
phone. WITHOUT EVEN WARNING ME.
This resulted in me being stranded on the road for over 45 minutes as I was
unable to make any calls.

SO i called Vodafone helpline 111 AGAIN. I spoke to some Mr. Riyaz who also
claimed to be the supervisor.

This guy seemed to be the ringleader of the arrogant lot. He refused to
listen to me. Didn't care that I had gone through so much due to no fault of
my own.

I'm a journalist, all my friends are with the media. I know I'm not the
first person to have an issue with Vodafone and it would be a great delight
to make this problem a public one.
But honestly I have no energy. I just want my phone to work and life will be
happy again.


I refuse to believe that my usage has been 60,000. UNLESS THERE ARE SOME NEW
ADDITIONAL CHARGES THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN INFORMED ABOUT.

My last bill was Rs. 1356 and i honestly will not be paying this Rs. 11,
000.

*I would sincerely request you to look into this problem. Because I'm sure
there's some sort of glitch in your accounting. *

My phone is not working, I've just got into a lot of trouble at work and if
you expect me to pay for something I have not used, it's not happening.

As far as it was explained to me, in the 499 plan, only internet browsing
above 450 KB would be charged. I don't understand what has happened.


PLEASE HAVE SOMEONE CALL ME, ASAP.

This isn't a threat but I will have to go over to one of your stores
tomorrow morning and create a HUGE ruckus there.

Maybe an article on the front page of any of the papers too would help.
Honestly, this is not a threat.

But if that's what it takes for you guys to help me out and sort out my
problem, then so be it.


--
Pasham Alwani