DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NORTH 24 PARGANAS, AT BARASAT.

                                                                                                            C.C. NO. 242 / 2015

Date of Filing                               Date of Admission                  Date of Disposal

  20.04.2015                                       04.05.2015                                03.04.2018

                                                                         Complainant :

                                                            MRS. LOPAMUDRA DASGUPTA

                                                            Residing at Sunrise Estate, Flat No. D-301,

                                                            14-C, Radhanath Chowdhury Road,

 Kolkata – 700015.

• VERSUS      .

                                                                       Opposite Parties :-

1.   Vodafone East Limited

Having its Office at DLF IT Park,

Block – AF, 15^th Floor, 08 Major Arterial Road,

New Town, Rajarhat,

Kolkata – 700156.

2.    Appellate Office, Vodafone East Limited,

Having its Office at DLF IT Park,

Block – AF, 15^th Floor, 08 Major Arterial Road,

New Town, Rajarhat,

Kolkata – 700156.

Present: Sri.Siddhartha Ganguli.....................Member

Smt. Silpi Majumder...........................Member

Ld Advocate for the Complainant: Suyash Basu Dasgupta

Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps: Anushree Mondal

                                                        Final Order and Judgement

The complainant files an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Ops and prays for providing data usage charges details & refund of Rs.33,123/- and for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and other reliefs as prayed for in the petition.

Typed & Corrected by me

Member                                                                                                           Cont......P/2

::2::

The gist facts of the case is that the Complainant obtained a Vodafone 3G mobile phone being number 9051670870.  The Complainant was using the 3G connection on the Complainant’s I-pad till April 2014, and was also paying the data usage and rental charges payable for the said number till then.  At the end of April 2014 the Complainant took a Tata Docomo connection and stopped the using the said 3G connection for the said I-pad and was paying the rentals only for Tata Docomo connection.

It is stated by the Complainant that in July 2014, the Complainant received a bill dated 21^st July 2014 from the Opposite Party No. 1, amounting to Rs. 33,123/- (Rupees Thirty three Thousand One Hundred and Twenty three only).  As the Complainant had stopped using the said number in April 2014, the Complainant was surprised that such a bill had been raised and contacted Mr. Sumit Chakraborty, a Customer Care Representative of Vodafone East Limited.

Upon inquiring from Mr. Sumit Chakraborty, the Complainant learned that there had been a data usage of 11GB (Giga Bytes).  The Complainant had not used the said number since April 2014.  The device on which the number was being used and the data was being consumed had been turned off.  The Complainant had been paying only rental charges for the number 9051670870.  As the Complainant wanted further details of the said data usage the Complainant sent an e-mail message dated 28^th July 2014 to

It is stated that Mr. Satadru Goswami of the Nodal Office of the Opposite Party acknowledged the e-mail message dated 28^th July 2014 and then assigned a service registration number for the said complaint being 1559146360and he assured the complainant that the Opposite Party was investigating the complaint and would reply with a ‘conclusive response by 30/07/2014’.

It is stated that Mr. Rohan Bhattacharya of the Nodal Office of the Opposite Party by an e-mail message dated 30^th July 2014 acknowledged the Complainant’s e-mail message and then stated that ‘ ...... there is no aberration in the data charges levied....’  The Nodal Office also assigned a further number to the correspondence being 961544370.  He also confirmed that the Invoice dated 21^st July 2014 was correct and that there had been a data usage of ‘.....12400180 KB (11.83 GB approximately) for which you were charged Rs.44,028/-.’  Mr. Bhattacharya in the same e-mail message also stated that the final amount payable after discounts of Rs.15,399..60 was Rs.28,629.20.

Being dissatisfied with the response of the Nodal Office of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant sent a further e-mail dated 30^th July 2014 requesting for ‘...break-up of the usage timing and dates...’ as the Complainant had already stated that the Vodafone SIM bearing number 9836070392 had not been used from the last week of April 2014.

The Nodal Office of the Opposite Party through its Officer Ms. Ria Dasgupta sent a further e-mail message dated 30^th July 2014 to the Complainant stating that the Complainant could view and download detailed invoices of the last 13 months, free of cost, after registering on My Vodafone by visiting

The Complainant was corresponding with various representatives of the Opposite Parties who were unable to assist the Complainant.  Being aggrieved by the multiple representatives who were corresponding with the Complainant, the Complainant requested that the Opposite Parties assign one representative to assist the complainant or to allow the Complainant to correspond with someone superior by e-mail message dated 31^st July 2014.

Typed & Corrected by me

Member                                                                                                                     Cont......P/3

::3::

The Complainant attempted to register with My Vodafone but the One Time Password (OTP) did not arrive at the Complainant’s registered e-mail address.  Upon such failure to receive the said OTP, the Complainant sent an e-mail message dated 31^st July 2014 informing the representatives of the Opposite Parties of the same.

Thereafter on 11^th August 2014, the Complainant sent an e-mail message dated 11^th August 2014 to st January 2014 to 31^st August 2014.  The Complainant also informed the Opposite Parties that the Complainant was able to register with My Vodafone for only one number and not all three numbers in the Complainants name.)

The Complainant sent another e-mail message dated 11^th August 2014 to the Opposite Party stating that the Complainant had spoken with Mr. Abhishek Jaiswal, on the helpline of the Opposite Party for fifteen minutes and after a long conversation with Mr. Jaiswal the Complainant found out that the e-mail address of the Complainant had been incorrectly recorded.  Upon coming to know of such a mistake the Complainant in her e-mail message stated her correct e-mail address to be recorded and also outline her problems with the billing amount and also with the multiple representatives of the Opposite Parties with whom the Complainant was corresponding continuously.

On 12^th August 2014, the Complainant received an e-mail message from Ms. Debduti Paul, a representative of the Opposite Party acknowledging receipt of the Complainant’s e-mail message and also explaining to the Complainant how the Complainant may be able to update her e-mail address in the Opposite Party’s records.  Ms. Paul also stated that the data usage charges had been levied correctly.  The communication between the Complainant and Ms. Paul was also assigned a service registration number which was 973814336.

Upon receipt of the e-mail message dated 12^th August 2014, the Complainant sent a reply on the same day thanking Ms. Paul, representative of the Opposite Party, for sharing information about how to update her e-mail address in the Opposite Party’s records.  The Complainant also re-iterated in her e-mail message that the said data usage could not have been by the Complainant as the Complainant had not used the mobile number being 9051670870 from the last week of April 2014.  The Complainant also requested for a copy of the detailed usage stating the specific date and time when the data usage had taken place.

On the 13^th August 2014, Mr. Tanmoy Banik, a representative of the Opposite Party sent an e-mail message to the Complainant stating that the Opposite Party had tried to reach the Complainant on the 13^th of August 2014 on the Complainant’s mobile numbers and spoke with the Complainant’s aged mother.  The Opposite Party requested the Complainant to provide a time between 9.30 A.M. and 6.00 P.M. to speak with the Complainant and address the matter at the earliest.

The Complainant sent another e-mail message dated 22^nd August 2014 to the Ms. Shayanti Roy, representative of the Opposite Party informing Ms. Roy that the SIM Card for the number 9051670870 had been destroyed in July 2014.  The Complainant also informed Ms. Roy that she would like to discontinue her number with immediate effect.  The Complainant would also like the number disconnected from 22^nd August 2014.

Ms. Shayanti Roy, a representative of the Opposite Party, replied to the Complainant by her e-mail message dated 22^nd August 2014, asking whether the complainant would like to have a new SIM Card for the number 9051670870 delivered to her address even though the Complainant had requested that the connection be discontinued.

 Typed & Corrected by me

Member                                                                                                                     Cont......P/4

::4::

The Complainant then replied by her e-mail message dated 22^nd August 2014 to Ms. Shayanti Roy, a representative of the Opposite Party, clarifying that the Complainant did not want a new SIM card.  The Complainant once again informed Ms. Roy that there was a billing dispute prevailing with the Opposite Party, and that the Complainant would not pay the bill amount until the dispute was resolved.  The complainant also informed the Opposite party that the Complainant found discrepancies in the data usage, namely the date and time of usage, and would like to meet a representative of the Opposite Party to discuss the issue.

On the 25^th August 2014, Ms. Pranali Dhasal, a representative of the Opposite Party sent an e-mail message to the Complainant stating that the Opposite Party had scrutinized the invoice dated 21^st July 2014, and confirmed that there had not been any aberration in the mobile charge levied as stated by the concerned department.  The Opposite Party also informed the Complainant of the data plan that the Complainant was availing of and the benefits available therewith.  The Opposite Party also assigned a service registration number to the said correspondence being 985182685.

The Complainant sent a further e-mail message dated 25^th August 2014 to the Opposite Party repeating that the Complainant did not want to continue to use the mobile number being 9051670870 and wanted the said mobile connection terminated immediately.  The Complainant also stated that the she had found an anomaly in the data usage as provided by the Opposite Party after repeated correspondences.

Thereafter several correspondences were made one after another by sending e-mail to the OP and different representatives of the OP replied through return e-mail, but the problem of the Complainant has never been sorted out.  The Complainant however paid Rs.34,100/- to the O.P after getting the discount of Rs.15,399.60.

Therefore, Complainant files this case before this Forum for proper reliefs as prayed for.

Reliefs sought for

1.  An Order directing the Opposite Parties to provide details as to the data usage charges ;

2. An Order directing the Opposite Parties to investigate the data usage and confirm that the data usage had been done by the Complainant and to provide the Internet Protocol address on which the said usage had taken place ;

3. An Order directing the Opposite Parties to refund the said amount of Rs.33,123/- (Rupees Thirty three

Thousand One Hundred and Twenty three only) to the Complainant if the Complainant has not used the data ;

4. An Order directing the Opposite Parties to award interest on the said amount of Rs.33,123/- (Rupees Thirty three Thousand One Hundred and Twenty three only) from the date of deposit of the said amount with the Opposite Parties to the date on which the Opposite Parties refund the said amount to the Complainant at the rate of 15% per annum on the said amount ;

Typed & Corrected by me

Member                                                                                                                     Cont......P/5

::5::

5. An Order directing the Opposite Parties to award damages and / or compensation amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) for the mental harassment and anguish that the Complainant has had to undergo in pursuing this action ;

6. Award costs of these proceedings ; and

7. Such other and / or further reliefs as deem fit and proper.

The complainant in order to prove her case filed the following documents:

1.Copy of bill 21.07.2014 amounting to Rs. 33,122.62

2.Copy of usage details from 21.06.2014 to 20.07.2014.

3.Copy of correspondences  from A-2 to A-28.

4.Copy of receipt dated 11.09.2014, marked as A-29.

5. Copy of correspondences from A-30 to A-36.

The O.Ps appeared before this Forum and filed written version. In the W/V the O.Ps denied all the allegations made by the complainant and further stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition. The O.Ps also filed a separate non maintainability petition. The O.Ps stated that there had been a data usage of 11.83 GB through the Vodafone mobile number 9051670870 for which the complainant was admittedly charged Rs.33,123/ after deduction and the said data usage has been made from 02.07.2014 to 08.07.2014 through the Vodafone mobile and the same has been clearly shown in the detailed invoice dated 21.07.2014. It is further stated that the bill amount showed massive net usage from 02.07.2014 to 08.07.2014 which the complainant was aware about such usage. The complainant was given the detailed usage bill for the period 02.07.2014 to 08.07.2014 and has made payment OF Rs.34,100/ dated 21.09.2014.The O.P files a copy of licensed agreement and a copy of judgment  of the  Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in C/W Civil Appeal No: 7687 /2004.

Complainant files E- Chief on 31.05.2016.

Both sides files B.N.A

From the complaint petition, W/V, evidence and other materials on record the following points have been framed.

1. Is the complainant a consumer?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

 All the points have been taken together for the sake of brevity and for avoidance of  repetition of facts.

It is evident from the materials on record that the complainant had obtained a Vodafone 3G mobile phone number, being No: 9051670870. The complainant had been using the said mobile connection with her I-pad till 2014 and also paying the data usage and rental charges payable for the said number till then. The complainant at the end of April 2014 took another connection from a different company and stopped using the said Vodafone 3G connection for the said I-pad.

The complainant received a bill amounting to Rs.33, 123/ dated 21.07.2014 and upon enquiry she came to learn that there had been a data usage of 11 GB for the period 02.07.2014 to 08.07.2014 and for which such bill was generated and she has been offered to pay certain

Typed & Corrected by me

Member                                                                                                                     Cont......P/6

::6::

amount after deduction. The complainant made several correspondences with the various employees of the O.P Company and got details of the data usages and other related informations. The complainant however paid the bill amounting to Rs.34,100/ as reflected from the document filed by her being serial No:A-29.As the complainant got the mobile phone number as noted above from the O.P company and  had been using the same after paying the periodical bills, therefore the complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps as per the definition of Consumer as provided U/S 2(1)(d) of the C.P Act,1986 and the O.Ps are the service providers of the complainant.

Now, in order to determine whether the O.Ps were deficient or not we have to go through the evidence of the complainant and other materials on record again.

It is the admitted position that the complainant had obtained a vodafone 3G connection being No: 9051670870 and she had been using the same till April 2014. The complainant stated that she stopped using the said mobile number and took another SIM of another service provider. But curiously enough an exorbitant bill has been generated by the O.P company for using 11 GB data within a short  span of time for which she has been burdened to pay Rs.34,100/ after making deduction. The complainant stated that she had not used the SIM of the O.Ps and the bill is fabricated.  Had the complainant stopped using the SIM of the O.Ps she should have informed the O.Ps immediately to that effect. Neither she informed the O.Ps for blocking the SIM nor did she return the SIM to the O.Ps. The complainant could have returned the SIM to the O.Ps immediately after she had stopped using it. But simply she retained the SIM of the O.Ps with her. The bills have been generated through computer by the O.Ps. So there is no possibility of any err on the side of the O.Ps. As the SIM was with the complainant only special knowledge was with her as to the usage of data in respect of the SIM of the O.Ps. The burden of proving the case is with the complainant only. The O.Ps provided every details of the data usage and the complainant has paid the bill as aforesaid. As the SIM was with the complainant only it cannot be certainly said that she did not use the same or someone on her behalf did not use the same.

The complainant must have come with clean hands. The complainant has to stand on her own legs in order to establish the case. The complainant fails to prove her case and here we find no deficiency on the part of the O.Ps and so question of compensation does not arise.

Therefore the case of the complainant is liable to be rejected.

All the points have been discussed elaborately and disposed of.

Hence

 It is ordered that the Consumer Complaint, being No: CC-242 of 2015 is dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let free copies be given to the parties concerned.

               Member                                                                                    Member

Typed & Corrected by

Member