Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/839/2017

Amandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A.P Kaushal

05 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/839/2017
Date of Institution	:	30/11/2017
Date of Decision	:	05/10/2018

 

 

Amandeep Singh S/o S.Raghbir Singh, R/o H.No.91-B, Partap Nagar, Patiala, presently residing at H.No.100, Phase-6, Mohali, Punjab.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]    Vodafone India Limited, Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director.

[2]    Vodafone Store, SCO 487-488, Sector 35-C, Himalaya Road, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM        :	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. A.P. Kaushal, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Ms. Navjot Kaur, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that the Complainant had requested the Opposite Parties to change his mobile number 8872000031 from post-paid to pre-paid, but the Opposite Parties never made the same and made the Complainant to pay hefty sum in post-paid plans. The Complainant was issued one sim card in June 2017 but the said sim was never activated. Further, the Opposite Parties kept on receiving hefty sum in the shape of postpaid bill from the Complainant for 10 months and thereafter changed the plan to pre-paid. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties filed their joint reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant had failed to make the payments on time against the mobile bills generated as per his usage and plan. It has been asserted that the Complainant made a request to migrate his sim from post-paid to pre-paid on 03.11.2017 and on the same day made advance payment of Rs.215/- against the mobile bill to be generated on 21.11.2017. Accordingly, answering Opposite Party raised the bill of Rs.177.45/- on 21.11.2017 for which Rs.215/- was received in advance for the migration at the request of the Complainant. Therefore, an amount of Rs.37.55/- was credited to the pre-paid account of the Complainant along with the security amount of Rs.125/- deposited with the answering Opposite Party. Thus, the total amount of Rs.162.55/- was credited in the pre-paid balance of the Complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
6.         The main allegation of the Complainant is that inspite of repeated requests for change of his payment plan towards his mobile from post-paid to pre-paid, the plan opted by him was not changed by the Opposite Parties in time. The Complainant has miserably failed to adduce any such documentary evidence to show as to when he had made such a request to the Opposite Parties. Thus, in the absence of such a proof, the above assertion is held to be hollow. Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
7.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  
8.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
05/10/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”