F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

Facts of the case of the complainant, in short, is that this complainant being a subscriber of mobile phone no. 9830961948 opted for One Time Rental under New Talk 150 Plan from Vodafone Company Limited. As such, complainant made payment of Rs. 1,012/- for the said plan for the period 21.7.2014 to 20.07.2015. O.ps. claimed Rs. 2,630/- as monthly rent for the period from 21.7.2014 to 20.7.2015 including service tax. These o.ps. illegally received Rs. 2,630/- as rental despite payment of Rs. 1,012/- for the said scheme on 04.07.2014 for the period 21.7.2014 to 20.7.2015. On several times this complainant requested the o.ps. to refund the excess money received illegally from him;  but the o.ps. did not pay any heed. So this complainant has filed this case and prayed for passing award directing o.ps. to refund the excess amount of Rs. 2,630/- with 15% interest received by o.p. company. The complainant has also made prayer for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and other reliefs.    

In this case written version filed on behalf of the Vodafone Services Ltd., for o.ps. denying all allegations as made in the petition of complaint,  contending interalia that the case is not maintainable; no cause of action; Vodafone Services Ltd.  have not been made parties in this case. So this case is defect for parties.

The specific case of the o.ps., in short, is that the complainant was well aware that his one time rental plan expired on 21.7.2014 as such complainant was informed vide letter dated 10.07.2014 requesting him to visit the Vodafone Store and submit an application,  whereby he has to chose the plan. Complainant deposited certain amount without filing any application choosing the plan. It is further case of the o.p. is that the complainant allegedly made payment of the one time rental plan for the period from 21.7.2014 to 20.7.2015 but the said plan was not activated by the Vodafone Company. So this o.p. charged Rs. 699/- to activate the said plan by the bill dated  21.12.2014.

Complainant made payment of Rs. 1,012/- against OTR. Thereafter OTR activated. So the allegation of the complainant about excess payment of Rs. 2,630/- is baseless. So the complaint is liable to be  dismissed.

On the date of final hearing neither any official of o.ps. nor their  advocates was present. So this case was heard ex parte.

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

This case is being conducted by the complainant in person, who has made argument stating interalia that he had to pay Rs. 2,630/- for the one time rental plan – 150 Plan to the o.p. despite payment of Rs. 1,012/- for the said plan earlier. So according to his argument that this complainant is entitled to refund the excess amount paid by him to o.ps. company.

In this case we have already stated that the o.ps. did not appear on the date of final hearing as such case was heard ex parte. But it appears that written version has been filed by Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. on 27.4.2017. So in view of clause ( c ) sub section ( 2 ) of Section 13 of C.P. Act, 1986. This Forum can decide this case on merit after considering the contents of written version filed by Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. for all o.ps.

Perused the petition of complaint and copies of documents filed by complainant and the contents of written version and documents filed along with written version. It appears that the written version filed for o.ps. through Vodafone Services Ltd. though he has not been made impleaded as o.ps. in this case. But Manager of Customer Care, Vodafone East Ltd. and the Appellant Authority of Vodafone East Limited have been made parties in this case, who are responsible officials of Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.Moreover, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. submitted written version on behalf of all o.ps. So we find that as the Vodafone Mobile Services has filed written version and to contest this case through its official o.ps. who have been impleaded as o.ps. So we hold that the case is not bad for defect of parties.

On perusal of the materials on record and the written version it appears that it is undisputed that complainant adopted one time rental under New Talk – 150 Plan for his case mobile phone as such he had to pay Rs. 1,012/- for the period from 21.07.2014 to 20.07.2015. It also admittedin the written version that the said case plan was not activated. We find that it was the responsibility of the o.p. Vodafone Company Ltd. to activate the said complaint as payment has been received by it from complainant for case 150 plan.

On perusal of the records as well as written version that the Vodafone Company Ltd. has admitted receipt of Rs. 1,012/- for the plan namely One Time Rental under New Talk 150 Plan from complainant to provide service case 150 plan. On the other hand complainant has been able to prove by submitting photo copies of receipts that the Vodafone Company claimed Rs. 2630.50 as monthly rental charge in respect of the case mobile phone bearing subscription no. 9830961948 for the period 21.7.2014 to 20.7.2015. It also admitted by the complainant in para 5 of the petition of complaint that Rs. 1,012/- paid as charge of the case plan and the complainant had to deposit Rs. 2,630.50. So we hold that complainant has been able to prove that he paid Rs. 1,012/- as rental for the period 21.7.2014 to 20.7.2015 for One Time Rental under New Talk 150 Plan from Vodafone Company Limited in respect of the case mobile phone and the complainant has also be able to prove that he compelled to pay Rs. 2,630.50 for the said period as monthly rental charge, despite payment of Rs. 1,012/- for the case plan / scheme.

So we hold that o.p. company has received excess money ofRs. 2,630/- from the complainant despite receipt of Rs. 1,012/- for case scheme i.e., in respect of the case mobile phone i.e., One Time Rental under New Talk 150 Plan of Vodafone Company Limited.

In view of the circumstances we hold that complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 2,630/- from the o.p. company as a deficiency in service and unfair and deceptive trade practice.

So we hold that o.p. nos. 1 & 3 being responsible official of Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. / Vodafone East Limited are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs. 2,630/- along with interest.

            We do not like to pass any award against o.p. no. 2, The Appellate  Authority,  Vodafone East Limited, Constantia Office Complex as he has no role about receipt of excess amount as alleged from complainant.  So the complaint is liable to be dismissed against o.p. no. 2 as there is no cause of action against o.p. no. 2. 

In the result, the complaint case succeeds in part.  

Hence,            

                                                O     R     D      E      R      E        D   

      That the C. C. Case No. 22 of 2017 ( HDF  22 of 2017 )  be  and the same is hereby allowed  on merits against o.p. nos. 1 & 3 and dismissed ex parte against the o.p. no. 2 / the Appellant Authority.  

      That the o.p. nos. 1 & 3 are hereby directed to refund of Rs. 2,630/- to the complainant along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% p.a. from 01.8.2015 till its full realization;  failing which complainant is at liberty to realize the same with due course of law.     

      Prayer for other relief is hereby rejected.

      Let plain  copy of this judgment be given to the complainant, free of cost, and a  plain copy of the judgment  be served upon the all o.ps. by  registered post / speed post with A.D. as early as possible, free of costs.   

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    Abdul Kuddus )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.