Order No. 8 dt. 23/06/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant used to use the mobile telecom services of Vodafone network with his mobile no.9830016650 for the last 18 years. During June 5, 2015 to June 13, 2015 the complainant went to Europe carrying with him the same mobile phone . But according to the complainant the said mobile phone remained defunct from 6th June, 2015 onwards during his stay at Europe. On returning to India complainant visited a vodafone store for reviving his mobile set. The said store replaced the chipset of the mobile with a SIM and provided the reference number 1793744650 to the complainant. Subsequently complainant received a bill amounting to Rs.15,141.19 which appears unbelievable to the complainant . Complainant on enquiry through email came to know the details of the bill and decided to pay a token amount of Rs.2,000/- to maintain the relation of a consumer like him, with the service provider, Vodafone Company. But Vodafone co demanded immediate payment of the bill and ultimately on Jujy,2013 disconnected the service of outgoing call facility of Vodafone network against non-payment. Complainant was heavily shocked with this action from the service provider with whom the complainant retained his relation for long period. with such unusual step from the acclaimed company like Vodafone the complainant feared of further stringent steps and the complainant tried to protect himself out of such apprehension by lodging a complainant at this consumer protection forum.
O.p. contested the case by submitting w/v and denied all material allegations against the company. The o.p. formerly known as Vodafone East Ltd contended that the Vodafone number 9830016650 was well activated during the period from 10.05.2015 to09.06.2015 as a result the invoice dated 10.06.2015 arose along with the usage details against such connection. As a matter of fact the system generated invoice for the bill period of 10.05.2015 to 09.06.2015 itself shows the actual usages against the connection. Even the usage details of ISD calls, international SMSs, international roaming charges for incoming calls, outgoing calls as well as mobile internet usages are clearly stated in the said invoice dated 10.06.2015. O.p. strongly denied and disputed the allegation of appointing outsourced collection agencies to threaten the customer for the purpose of collection of the dues. Collection calls were actually made to remind the Customer to make the payment well within the timeline to enjoy uninterrupted services . The customer has failed to clear the genuine outstanding. Hence the grievance, if any by the customer is with regard to disconnection of the mobile. Op stated that the customer was to blame himself for all the opportunity loss and the disconnection, which could have been very well avoided. The complaint petition is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following points are to be decided : -
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.
- Whether the complainants will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainants argued that said mobile phone remained defunct from 6th June, 2015 onwards during his stay at Europe. In India complainant visited a vodafone store for reviving his mobile set. There after complainant received a bill amounting to Rs.15,141.19 which appears unbelievable to the complainant . Complainant paid a token amount of Rs.2,000/-. But Vodafone co demanded immediate payment of the bill. Company on Jujy,2013 disconnected the service of outgoing call facility of Vodafone network . Such action on the part of the o p was very much alarming & shocking to the complainant. complainant feared of further stringent steps and the complainant tried to protect himself by lodging a complaint at this forum.
The complainant pointed out that the complaint has been lodged out of apprehension of further stringent action from the end of the opposite parties. Outgoing call facility has already been stopped by the o.p. Thus it is evident that the cause of action of lodging complaint was the fear of stringent action known to the complainant.
Against the bill of Rs. 15,141.19 the complainant deposited Rs.2,000/-. Such action on the part of the complainant against the raised bill of Rs.15,141.19/- amounts to acceptance of the bill or distrust against the bill. Complainant had the responsibility to proof that the bill raised by the o.p. was excessive one against his non-payment of the whole amount. Mere distrust on the amount would not entitle the complainant to lodge a complaint. Thereafter o.p. restricted call facility regarding incoming calls. After such action complainant had not submitted any letter of dissatisfaction against the deficiency in service caused to the complainant . Again, complainant had not submitted any objection to the op against the usages details.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties and with the above points in view, we hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. and as such, the complainants will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
that the CC No.355/2015 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
