Delhi

StateCommission

RP/180/2017

VODAFONE INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABAN EXIM PVT. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                    Dates of Arguments: 18.01.18 

                                                                    Date of Decision:      01.02.18 

Revision Petition  No.180/2017

In the matter of:

Vodafone India Limited

Through its Authorised Representative

Peninsula Corporate Park

Ganpatrao Kadam Marg

Lower Parel

Mumbai – 400013.                                                                                      ….Petitioner                                                                                    

                                                          Versus

 

1.         Aban Exim Private Limited

            Through its Authorised Representative

D-60/2, Basement

East of Kailash

New Delhi- 110065.                                                            ….Respondent No.1

 

2.         Vodafone Mobile Services Limited

            Through its authorized representative

            C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II

            New Delhi-110020.                                                             …..Respondent No.2

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No

SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER JUDICIAL)

                                                                                JUDGEMENT

            The present revision at the stage of admission is against order dated 14.11.17 passed by District Forum in CC No. 187/16 vide which application filed by petitioner who was OP 2 before the District Forum for deletion of its name was dismissed.

2.        The impugned order shows that affidavit filed alongwith the application under consideration was signed by AR of OP 1 without any authority from OP 2.   The same shows that there was nexus between OP 1 and OP 2.  The argument of OPs that it was possible that all the OPs has same AR did not find favour with the district forum.  The reason being that there was nothing on record to indicate that the person who signed affidavit was AR of OP 2 also. The complaint was filed against four OPs. OP 1 was Vodafone Services Ltd., OP 2 was Vodafone India Ltd., OP 3 was DGM, Nodal Officer and OP 4 is banker of complainant.  The complainant claimed himself to be registered owner of Vodafone number 9999990702.  In para 4 of the complaint the complainant described OP 1 to 3 as one entity of Vodafone.  In Jan., Feb., the complainant made international trip for short duration and activated internal roaming package on its mobile. It availed of WIFI connectivity provided by the Hotel in which its Director was staying.  So the director did not switch on the mobile data usage during the trip and consumed international calling facility only.  An unwarranted bill of Rs. 86,856/- for mobile internet and usage was raised.

2.        The application moved by petitioner for deletion was based on the allegation that it did not have licence to operate in Delhi. OP 1 was the licencee and service provider in Delhi.  Mobile number has been provided by OP 1 and not OP 2.  Thus the OP 1 is neither necessary nor proper party.

3.        In reply the complainant submitted that OP 2 was hundred percent Indian Subsidiary Global Vodafone Group and was at the helm of affairs within the precinct of India.  OP 2 who was incharge of policy making, strategic decisions,  advertising and marketing etc. to lure a large consumer base on the assurance if standard and quality of services to be provided.  It has been on the basis of representations and assurance of OP 2 that it was able to garner the consumer base.  OPs 1 to 3 were entities collectively furthering their common goal of rendering telecom and its ancillary services to consumers.  All of them serving their respective roles ranging from rendering telecom services, customer support, grievances Redressal etc. were equally responsible for obtaining common objectives of procuring & retaining larger consumer base.  Communication addressed by OP No. 1 to 3 reflect address of OP 2 in their e-mail.

4.        Counsel for the petitioner relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indowind Energy Ltd. vs. Wescare India Ltd. (2010) 5 306 to show that companies are different entities  inspite of the fact that they may have  common Director. The decision is altogether in different context of appointment of arbitrator.

5.        Apparent perusal of the complaint shows that OPs 1 to 3 are one and the same.  In any event, nothing adverse has been done against OP 1/petitioner.  It is still open to it to convass its plea at the time of final arguments.

6.        Scope of revision is very very limited.  It is confined to jurisdictional infirmity such as exercise of jurisdiction by the District Forum not vested in it by law or failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction.  The question of fact cannot be allowed to be raised in revision.  In taking this view we are fortified by Rubi Chandra Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) II SCC 209.  The revision is dismissed in limini.

            Copy of the order be sent free of cost to both the parties.

            One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                     (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                              MEMBER(JUDICIAL)