Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/124/2018

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahil Thakur - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Gupta, Adv.

25 Oct 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	124 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	16.05.2018
Date of Decision	:	25.10.2018

 

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. (Earlier known as Vodafone Essar South Ltd.), (A company registered under the Companies Act), having its registered office at C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi and Regional Office at C-131, Phase-VII, Industrial Area, Mohali through its Authorised Representative.  

…….Appellant.

Versus

 

1. Sahil Thakur, Chamber No.181, District Court Complex, Sectort 43, Chandigarh.
2. Idea Cellular Company Ltd., through its Authorised Branch Head, SCO 495-496, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                                        ...Respondents.

 Argued by:

 

Sh. Parminder Kaur, Advocate proxy for Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Sahil Thakur (Advocate), respondent No.1/complainant.

None for respondent No.2.

(Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 09.08.2018).

 

Appeal No.	:	183 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	22.06.2018
Date of Decision	:	25.10.2018

 

Sahil Thakur, Advocate, Chamber No.108-A, District Courts, Sector 43, Chandigarh.

…….Appellant.

Versus

 

1. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. (Earlier known as Vodafone Essar South Ltd.), (A company registered under the Companies Act), having its registered office at C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi and Regional Office at C-131, Phase-VII, Industrial Area, Mohali through its Authorised Representative. 
2. Idea Cellular Company Ltd., through its Authorised Branch Head, SCO 495-496, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                                        ...Respondents.

 Argued by:

 

Sh. Sahil Thakur (Advocate), applicant/appellant/complainant.

Ms. Paramjit Kaur, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

None for respondent No.2.

 

 

Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection   Act, 1986 against   order dated 06.04.2018 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh   in Consumer Complaint No.463 of 2017.

 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.                                  MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                 MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

PER  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

 

                Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of aforesaid two appeals bearing Nos.124 of 2018 and 183 of 2018.

2.             The appellant/opposite party No.1 has filed appeal bearing No.124 of 2018 against order dated 06.04.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum), vide which, the appellant/opposite party No.1 was directed to complete the process to port out the mobile number of the respondent No.1/complainant to the Company of his choice immediately and further compensation and litigation expenses were granted to the extent of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively.

3.             It is apparent from record that when despite submitting an application, mobile number of respondent No.1/complainant was not ported out, complaint was filed before the Forum. The Forum has given a positive finding that there was deficiency in providing service on the part of appellant/opposite party No.1, taking note of which, order under challenge was passed.

4.             During pendency of appeal bearing No.124 of 2018, on 12.09.2018, following order was passed by this Commission:-

          “Vakalatnama not filed on behalf of respondent No.2. Be filed on the next date of hearing.

          At the time of arguments, it appears that Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd./appellant is trying to delay the proceedings of porting out mobile telephone number given to respondent No.1/complainant. Respondent No.1/complainant has done everything at his own part and further formalities are to be performed by the Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd./appellant.

          In view of attitude adopted by Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd./appellant, it is directed that henceforth, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd./appellant continue to provide services to respondent No.1/complainant, without charging anything against it. No effort should be made by Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd./appellant to disrupt continuity of the services provided to respondent No.1/complainant. It is further directed that before the next date of hearing, if mobile number of respondent No.1/complainant is not ported out, a cost of Rs.20,000/- shall be imposed upon Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd./appellant.

          On request, the matter is adjourned to 01.10.2018 for arguments.”

 

5.             It is stated by the Counsel for the parties that in response to above order, the mobile number of respondent No.1/complainant stand ported to the Company of choice of respondent No.1/complainant.

6.             In view of above, at the instance of appellant/opposite party No.1, we do not find any reason to interfere.

7.             Respondent No.1/complainant has also filed an appeal bearing No.183 of 2018, against the impugned order dated 06.04.2018, stating that the compensation awarded by the Forum is on the lower side. He continues to suffer as despite making an application, his mobile number was not ported out for about two years. It was specifically stated that the complainant has sought porting out of his mobile number to a Company, which was charging half of the amount and giving services better than the appellant/opposite party No.1.

8.             In view of finding of the Forum that there was laxity on the part of the appellant/opposite Party No.1 (in appeal No.124 of 2018), in not porting out the mobile number, we are of the opinion that if consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant (appellant in Appeal No.183 of 2018), it will be just and reasonable.

9.             In view of above, we modify the impugned order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the Forum and against grant of compensation and litigation expenses, in Para 8 (ii) & (iii) of the judgment under challenge, it is ordered that an amount of Rs.10,000/- be paid to the complainant, namely, Sh. Sahil Thakur’, towards settlement of all his claims. Let the amount be paid by opposite party No.1 to the complainant within 15 days from today, failing which, it shall entail penal interest @9% p.a. (simple) till the time of making the payment. 

10.           Accordingly, both the appeals bearing Nos.124 of 2018 and 183 of 2018 stand dispose of in the aforesaid terms.

11.           In view of disposal of appeals, the application for condonation of delay filed in Appeal No.183 of 2018 also stands disposed of having been rendered infructuous.

12.           Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

13.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

25.10.2018.

 

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad