Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/438/2015

Aman Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ish Mahajan

19 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/438/2015
Date of Institution	:	14/07/2015
Date of Decision	:	19/01/2016

 

Aman Singla s/o late Sh. Anil Kumar Singla r/o House No.3125, Sector 20D, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Vodafone India Limited, Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013, through its CEO.

2.     Vodafone South Limited, SCO No.170-171, Second Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its authorized representative.

3.     Vodafone Store, SCO No.487-488, Sector 35C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative.

4.     Vodafone South Limited, Circle Head Office, Plot No.C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali – 160071, through its Managing Director.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
		Ms. Parminder Kaur, Counsel for OPs

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Sh. Aman Singla, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Vodafone India Limited and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he was the customer of the OPs since April 2012 and was having two mobile Nos.9915344358 and 9915344359.

According to the complainant, in April 2014, he opted for MNP (Mobile Number Portability) and shifted to AIRTEL.  The complainant had deposited refundable security of Rs.250/- each with the OPs for both the aforesaid mobile numbers.  He requested the OPs for refund of the security deposit amount, but, they only refunded the security deposit of mobile No.9915344359 and not for 9915344358 despite writing several emails, visiting the office of OP-3, service of legal notice etc.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 

2.         In their written statement, OPs have not disputed the factual matrix. It has been averred that due to inadvertent error, OPs could not refund the security amount of Rs.250/- against mobile connection bearing No.9915344358.  It has been stated that the OPs, during conciliation proceedings, which took place before the Lok Adalat of this Forum, agreed to pay an additional compensation of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant for the inconvenience caused to him, but, he started raising exorbitant amount.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for the OPs. 
5.         Undoubtedly, the issue as stated by the OPs is very small i.e. of refund of a meagre amount of Rs.250/- only which the OPs had to refund, but, they did not pay any heed to the repeated requests of the complainant before filing of the present complaint. Annexure C-2 (Colly.) are copies of various emails written by the complainant to the OPs, Annexure C-3 is the copy of legal notice dated 25.6.2014 which was refused by the OPs and Annexure C-7 (Colly.) are copies of token No. issued by the OPs themselves not only once, but, twice on 10.10.2014 and 11.11.2014 respectively.  However, despite so many efforts on the part of the complainant, the OPs could not resolve the petty matter of refunding Rs.250/- only to the complainant till date.
6.         Pertinently, the present consumer complaint was filed on 14.7.2015 and the amount to be refunded by the OPs is pending since April 2014. Hence, the negligent act of the OPs for delaying the request of the complainant for refund, despite repeated emails and legal notice, certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the complainant which forced him to get indulged into the present unnecessary litigation. 
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed. OPs are directed :-

(i)     To refund the amount of Rs.250/- to the complainant, which was paid by him towards refundable security deposit. 

(ii)    To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment on the part of the OPs.

(iii)   To also pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

8.         This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
19/01/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member