Haryana

StateCommission

A/607/2016

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH KUMAR YADAV - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL GUPTA

07 Apr 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    607 of 2016

Date of Institution:    06.07.2016

Date of Decision :     07.04.2017

1.     Vodafone Mobile Services Limited (earlier known as Vodafone Digilink Limited)-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 D-8, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, Peeragarhi, New Delhi-110041, through its authorised representative.

2.     Vodafone Mobile Services Limited (earlier known as Vodafone Digilink Limited), Customer Care Service, Plot No.173, HSIIDC, Sector 3, Karnal.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties 2 & 3

Versus

1.      Suresh Kumar Yadav s/o Sh. Rohtas Yadav, Resident of Village Chandpura, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Vodafone Mobile Services Limited (Earlier known as Vodafone Diglink Limited), Mini Store, Narnaul Road, Mandi Ateli, Town Ateli, through its Proprietor.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Vishal Gupta, Advocate for appellants.

                             Respondent No.1 in person. 

                             None for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 against the order dated May 6^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Suresh Kumar Yadav-complainant was allowed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.                The complainant-respondent No.1 purchased a Mobile Telephone connection No.9991010790 from Vodafone Diglink India Limited-Opposite Parties under Advance 249 Plan and deposited security amount of Rs.500/-. He also availed internet service. The connection was activated on 22^nd, 2015 with Dynamic Credit Limit of Rs.800/-. The complainant was assured by the opposite parties to provide 400 sms (Short Message Service) free + 400 minutes talk time free + 1 GB internet free for a period of one month. The complainant was required to pay only an amount of Rs.249/- per month as post paid subscriber and was liable to pay the monthly charges after a period of one month.

3.                The opposite parties sent a bill of Rs.1594.86 (Annexure A-3) for the period 22^nd May, 2015 to 21^st June, 2015. The bill was to be paid up to 10^th July, 2015. Information was also given to the complainant through Short Message Service (SMS) but the complainant did not pay the bill by due date, that is, 10^th July, 2015. So, as per terms and conditions of the Customer Application Form (CAF), the service on mobile connection of the complainant was suspended with effect from July 23^rd, 2015.  

4.                Earlier on 22^nd May, 2015, the mobile phone provided to the complainant started functioning. First SMS message was received by the complainant on his mobile mentioning his credit limit for one month as Rs.2000/-.  On 31^st May, 2015 another SMS message was received that credit limit of the complainant was Rs.800/- per month. Despite time and again requests by the complainant, the opposite parties did not restore mobile phone connection to the complainant.  The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to start the above said sim/mobile connection without any delay and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and an amount of Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 

5.                Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte by the District Forum on 14^th October, 2015 as none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.1 despite service.

6.                The opposite parties No.2 and 3/appellants submitted their written version taking plea that the complainant is a subscriber of Vodafone with above said sim number/telephone number and his credit limit was Rs.800/- only. As per version of the opposite parties, the complainant did not make payment of mobile phone bill by due date i.e. 10^th July, 2015 and the service upon this mobile phone number was suspended w.e.f. 23^rd July, 2015 due to violation of the terms and conditions by the complainant.  However, the mobile connection of the complainant has been restored. It is pleaded that during the pendency of the complaint as per interim order dated 10^th September, 2015 passed by the District Forum, Narnaul, the mobile phone number of the complainant was restored and activated again. After that also, the complainant did not make payment of the bill amount regularly till 08^th November, 2015. During this period as a goodwill gesture, the opposite parties waived of an amount of Rs.1215.35 and again an amount of Rs.727.52 as mobile phone bill amount. As the above mentioned amount in dispute has already been waived of, it is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

7.                It is evident from the record and documents on the file that the claim of the opposite parties regarding the bill amount of Rs.1594.86 regarding the period from 22.05.2015 to 21.06.2015, was not justified. The usage of mobile internet was a little more than the free usage provided by the opposite parties under Advance 249 plan. The opposite parties had claimed bill amount of Rs.1594.86 but during pendency of the complaint, the opposite parties waived of an amount of Rs.1215.37 + Rs.727.52, up to 28.11.2015.  In this way, the amount waived of by the opposite parties is more than the bill amount issued by the opposite parties regarding the relevant period.  During the course of arguments it was also common case of both the parties that when the opposite parties appeared in the proceedings of the complaint case, soon after the mobile phone connection was restored.  In fact, the claim of the complainant got satisfied after waiver of an amount of Rs.1215.37 + Rs.727.52, and restoration of the mobile phone connection. It appears that practically the opposite parties thought it proper to satisfy the claim of the complainant, which happened due to the some acts of carelessness on the part of the officials of the opposite parties and due to miscalculation.

8.                While passing the impugned order, the District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony as well as an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.  During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties argued that when the relief claimed by the complainant was satisfied soon after the opposite parties received notice, the opposite parties should not have been burdened to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation charges. 

9.                On the other hand, the complainant who himself appeared in the proceedings of this appeal stated that the findings of the District Forum regarding compensation amount and litigation expenses should be affirmed as the complainant had to file complaint before the District Forum to redress his grievance.

10.              After going through the entire record on the file, keeping in mind as the relief claimed by the complainant was satisfied by the opposite parties soon after the notice was issued to the opposite parties to appear in the complaint case, I feel in such circumstances there was no necessity to pass a harass order and to burden the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and an amount of Rs.3300./- as litigation charges. 

11.              Moreover, this fact also cannot be over looked that the amount waived of by the opposite parties was more than the bill amount. Moreover the dispute in this case was regarding payment of only an amount of Rs.1594.86. Keeping in mind all these circumstances, the findings of the learned District Forum awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses were not justified.

12.              As a result as per discussion above in detail as the relief claimed by the complainant has already been satisfied, the impugned order dated 6^th May, 2016 is liable to be set aside.  Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 6^th May, 2016 is set aside and the complaint being fully satisfied stands dismissed.

13.              The statutory amount of Rs.7750/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 07.04.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL