Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/664/2017

Smt. Renu Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

N.K. Bedi

15 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/664/2017
Date of Institution	:	19/09/2017
Date of Decision	:	15/03/2018

 

Renu Sood W/o Sh. Dilip Kansal, R/o H.No. 3219, Sec. 37-D, Chandigarh, presently residing at H.No. 723, Top Floor, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

 

Vodafone Mobile Service Limited, having its Office: SCO 487-488, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

……Opposite Party

 

QUORUM:	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.RAVINDER SINGH	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Dilip Kansal, Husband of Complainant.
		Ms. Parminder Kaur, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the Consumer Complaint, are that the Complainant who has been using mobile number 9915938219 of Idea Company regularly from very long time, decided to port the same to Vodafone. Accordingly, a new Sim was issued to her, which was to be activated on 12.05.2017 pending physical verification. On 16.05.2017, when the representative of the Opposite Party visited the resident of Complainant i.e. H.No. 3219, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh, for physical verification, the real brother of the husband of the Complainant namely, Sandeep Gupta misrepresented him and gave wrong, false & vague information, based on which the Opposite Party had deactivated the Sim on 18.05.2017 without any reason and also suspended the same. On being approached a number of times, when the Opposite Party did not activate the Sim/number, the Complainant got served a legal notice upon the Opposite Party, but to no avail. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         The Opposite Party in its written statement has admitted that the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant was herself at fault as she had failed for the physical verification of address of mobile Sim on 16.05.2017. On visiting the House No. 3219, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh, the representative of the answering Opposite Party found that the person named Renu Sood was not residing at the given address. Therefore, due to negative verification the mobile number was disconnected and no harassment was caused to the Complainant. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party has sought dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed counter reply, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the Parties and heard the arguments addressed by the husband of Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party.
7.          After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the Complaint is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
8.         The main grievance of the Complainant is that her mobile number was not ported by the Opposite Party inspite of fulfilling all the requirements. On perusal of Para 3 of the Complaint, in her own admission the Complainant has herself admitted that physical verification by the Opposite Party failed as her own brother-in-law i.e. real brother of her husband Sandeep Gupta misrepresented the representative of the Opposite Party in the verification process and gave the Opposite Party wrong, false and vague information. Pertinently, the Complainant has failed to implead said Sandeep Gupta as a party to the Complaint who is a necessary party for the just and apt decision of the present Complaint. We find that Opposite Party has done its duty as per the verification rules. It is important to note that the Opposite Party had contacted the husband of the Complainant on the given number to receive a new sim from the nearest Vodafone store and get the porting completed after getting the fresh verification. However, the Complainant failed to take the necessary steps and rather, filed the present Complaint.        
9.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.    
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
15/03/2018	[Ravinder Singh]	[ Suresh Kumar Sardana ]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”