Aman Sood (aged 28 years) son of Sh.Parveen Kuamr Sood, resident of Rajindra Estate, Moga.
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.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh.Arun Sood, Adv.counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Vishal Jain, Adv.counsel for the OPs.
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.