DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. NO- 511/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Admission:- Date of Disposal:
12.08.2016 23.08.2016 27.02.2019
Complainant :- 1. Satya Narain Chamaria,
Eximcorp India Pvt. Limited,
25, R.N. Mukherjee Road,
Kolkata- 70000,1
P.S- Hare Street.
=Vs.=
OPs:- 1. M/s VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES Ltd.
DLF IT Park, Block- AF,
15th & 16th Floor, 8, Major Arterial Road,
New Town, Rajarhat,
P.S- New Town, Kolkata- 700156,
P R E S E N T :- Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay………President.
:- Smt. Silpi Majumder ……………………Member.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw ………..…………….Member.
Final Order
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OP as the OP did not settle the dispute till filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that he being a customer of the OP has been using the telephone service by way of post-paid mobile connection. He never defaulted any justified payment against the bill/s raised by the OP. The Complainant went abroad i.e. Nepal and applied for international roaming facilities in his mobile connection against which two bills were generated by the OP, one for the billing period from 21.03.2016 to 20.04.2016 dated 21.04.2016 and another for the billing period 21.04.2016 to 20.05.2016 dated 21.05.2016. The bill dated 21.04.2016 for the bill period from 21.04.2016 to 20.05.2016 was raised by the OP to the tune of Rs.14,203.97/-, wherein charges against mobile internet were quoted to the amount of Rs.7212.50/- which was never sought for and/or applied for by the Complainant. The Complainant made payment of Rs.6991.47/- through cheque dated 10.05.2016 and regarding this bill the rental, call charges were justified and undisputed, but the remaining amount of Rs.7212.50/- which was charged for unsolicited data charge also called as mobile internet was not paid and for this purpose a letter was issued by the Complainant through his Ld. Advocate on 29.05.2016, but the OP remained silent over the matter.
Cont………………2
:2:
C. C. NO- 511/2016
In due course another bill dated 21.05.2016 was raised for the billing period for 21.04.2016 to 20.05.2016 wherein the amount was charged by the OP for Rs.66,593/- as the OP has again charged an amount of Rs.53,586.49/- as mobile internet charges which is absolutely unsolicited. However the Complainant had duly paid the justified amount of Rs.4595.45/- by issuing cheque dated 08.06.2016 against the rental, call charges and other facilities which were solicited by him. The Complainant wrote a letter on 14.06.2016 to the Head Office Circle of the OP seeking clarifications and explanations regarding unsolicited mobile internet and further gave a notice praying for de-activation of the said SIM being no-+919830049764 stating the OP has charged him wrongly for Rs.53,586.49/- as excess amount which need to be nullified as such service was unsolicited, but the said letter remained unanswered.
The Complainant having no other option served another notice on 27.06.2016 to the OP by his Legal Counsel seeking clarification regarding unsolicited mobile internet charges wherein he mentioned that as the same was activated in his mobile connection without being applied for, hence he is not liable for payment of charges against the same. He further asked to deactivated the said SIM as he is no longer willing to avail of any service from the OP. But most unfortunately there was no response from the OP. According to the Complainant such action of the OP clearly reveals their deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. As the OP did not take any step to redress the grievance of the Complainant before coming to the Court of Law, hence finding no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OP for settlement of the questioned two bills, deactivated the SIM, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- due to harassment and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- to him.
After admission of this complaint notice was issued upon the OP, the OP appeared, filed maintainability petition on affidavit, thereafter filed written version, the Complainant adduced evidence on affidavit, the OP also adduced evidence, the same could not be accepted as it was not supported by affidavit, scope was given to the OP for adducing evidence on affidavit, the same was not adduced, the Complainant and the OP have filed BNA, copy exchanged.
During argument it is noticed by this Ld. Forum that the petition of complaint was filed supported by affidavit, but the written version filed by the OP is not supported by affidavit. Therefore we do not take any cognizance of the written version filed by the OP as it does not bear any legal value and sanctity.
Cont………………3
:3:
C. C. NO- 511/2016
Moreover in view of the landmark judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant & Others vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported in MANU/SC/0668/2002, dated 12.08.2002, wherein Their Lordships have held in the paragraph no-37 (c) ‘that the complaint as well as defence version should be accompanied by documents and affidavits upon which parties intend to rely.’ Having regard to the said observation being the Law of this Land, we are not in a position to mention the averment of the written version on the ground that it is supported by affidavit.
Further the OP did not adduce evidence on affidavit, which reveals that the OP practically did not challenge the petition of complaint. As the Petition of complaint remains unchallenged, hence we are not inclined to observe as to whether the Complainant has proved his case or not. In this respect we may mention to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of M/s. Singla Builders & Promoters Limited vs Aman Kumar Garg, reported in 2018 (1) CPR 314 (NC), decided on 16.10.2017, wherein it has been held that ‘non-filing of written version to complaint amounts to admission of allegations levelled against them in consumer complaint.’
The abovementioned Ruling can be applicable in the case in hand as in the instant complaint inspite of appearance by the OP, the OP did not file written version and evidence in accordance with law, which amounts that the OP did not contest the complaint. Therefore in view of the said judgment the allegations as made out by the Complainant in the petition of complaint can be admitted as no rebuttal is forthcoming in accordance with law against such allegations.
Going by the Foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the Consumer Complaint being no-511/2016 is hereby allowed with cost. The OP shall settle the dispute regarding two bills as alleged by the Complainant dated 21.04.2016 and 21.05.2016 within a period of 45 days from the date of passing this judgment. The OP is directed to deactivate the SIM as sought for by the Complainant forthwith and pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of passing this judgment as the OP did not care to settle the dispute and the Complainant had to approach before this Ld. Forum for which he has incurred some expenditure. In default of compliance with the abovementioned order the Complainant will be at liberty to put the entire decree in execution as per provision of Law.
Member Member President
Dictated & Corrected by
