Order-13.
Date-28/11/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the Complainant in short is that he is a bonafide consumer of Vodafone Mobile Services having lawfully subscribed to a Vodafone No.+91-9830076495. It is alleged that OP party has generated fabricated bill on 21.12.2015 for the period 21.10.2015 to 21.11.2015 in connection with its services to the said Mobile No. of the Complainant. It is stated that the Bill so generated by the OP is totally unjustified and not relevant with the printed offer that was made during just prior to “ International Roaming Pack Activation”. OP has not taken any effort to resolve the matter in spite of repeated requests. It is also alleged that the men or agent of the OP is threatening him over telephone and also by visiting directed the Complainant to pay Rs.9,000/- and sometimes Rs.6,000/- without laying any details of the exact nature of the said International Roaming charges accrued against the Complainant’s said mobile no. It is also stated that the men of agent have also showed ‘red eyes’ to the Complainant. The OP has also stopped connection and services in respect of the mobile no. of the Complainant on and from 01.01.2016 causing much inconvenience and disrupting valuable communications of the Complainant with people. It is alleged that OPs have been negligent, deficient in rendering services to the Complainant and the OP has also indulged in unfair trade practice.
O.Ps. did not appear in this case initially. O.Ps. also failed to file W.V. within the statutory period and as such the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing. On the date of ex-parte hearing a Lawyer appeared on behalf of O.Ps. with written version and vokalatnama. This Forum could not entertain such written version or vokalatnamaas Dist. Fora has not been given power to set aside ex-parte order and the power which has not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised (Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Others Vs. AchyutKashinathKarekar 2011 (9) Scale 287, (2011) 9 SCC 541 relied upon). We are accordingly took up the case for ex-parte hearing. The case as such is heard ex-parte.
Points for decision
- Whether the OP has been deficient in rendering services to the Complainant?
- Whether the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
We have perused the documents on record i.e. photocopy of the Vodafone Bill, photocopy of the letter dated 06.02.2016 addressed to the Complainant by the OP,photocopy of the letter dated 16.01.2016 addressed to the Complainant by the OP, photocopy of the letter dated 15.3.2016 addressed to OP by the Complainant with regard to payment of Rs.5,000/-, photocopy of the letter darted 17.02.2016 addressed to OP by the Complainant for resuming call facility and other documents on record.
It appears that the Complainant activated international roaming pack worth Rs.1,599/- at the call rate of Rs.30/- per minute as told by Customer Care Executive executing at Vodafone Store, Lenin Sarani.
It appears that the Complainant returned on 31.10.2015 from abroad and he did not visit any Vodafone Store for deactivation from 1st November,2015 to 15th November,2015. It appears that a Bill of Rs.9,000/- was generated. It appears that if there is 61 minutes call time as per the details of the OP, the call rate would be around Rs.1800/-plus activation charges of Rs.1599/-, so the total comes to Rs.3,400/-. Moreover, we find that the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- on amicable settlement with the OP on 01.01.2016. When there is amicable settlement and the matter is resolved between the parties amicably, OP cannot insist on payment of outstanding Bills of Rs.10,314.90.
The version of the Complainant remains unchallenged and uncontroverted in absence of any W.V. or contrary documents from the side of the OP within the statutory period. It appears that OP has not restored the connection on receiving an amount of Rs.5,000/- as settled between the parties. We think that the OP has put up a gesture of deficiency of services. We think that the Complainant is entitled to restoration of connection on his mobile being no.9830076495.
In result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex parte, but on merit with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
OP is directed to restore the connection and services to the subject mobile of the Complainant within ‘7 days’ i.e. from the date of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution u/s-25 read with Section-27 of the C. P. Act,1986 and in that event OP will be liable to pay penal damage at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.
