Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/325/2018

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone Mobile Services Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 Nov 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	325 of 2018
Date of Institution	31.10.2018
Date of Decision	02.11.2018

Sh.Ashok Kumar s/o Sh.Harmal Singh, R/o H.No.1420, Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh.                    

                                  …..Appellant/Complainant.

                           Versus

Vodafone Mobiles Services Limited, SCO No.487-488, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

                                ....Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                             MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.Ashok Kumar, appellant/complainant in person.  

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.08.2018, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.226 of 2018.

 2.            The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is subscriber of Vodafone mobile connection bearing No.7837793178 and using the said number for the last about 6/7 years. It was stated that the Opposite Party sent a bill in the sum of Rs.910.96 in December, 2017 and in this bill, a single call was of 57 minutes & 10 seconds and total amount of this call was Rs.513/-. It was further stated that the complainant again called immediately on this number for 1 minute & 10 seconds and bill charged was Rs.9/-. It was further stated that the second bill including the previous bill sent to the complainant was Rs.1348.30, but he was unable to pay the same, due to which, the Opposite Party Company closed his number. Due to closure of number of the complainant, he suffered a lot. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

3.             In its written statement, the Opposite Party while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant was having post-paid connection bearing No.78377-93178 and was issued bill dated 01.01.2018 for the period from 01.12.2017 to 31.12.2017 for an amount of Rs.910/- for December, 2017.  It was stated that the complainant himself made a call to Special Number 55555, whereby, service availed by Customer was ‘Pyaar Ke rangeen Kisse’ on 23.12.2017 for duration of 57 minutes & 10 seconds, for which, he was charged Rs.513/- and also on the same date he made another call on the same number for 1 minute and 10 seconds, for which, he was charged Rs.9/- (Annexure R-1).  It was further stated that another bill for the period from 01.01.2018 to 31.01.2018 in the sum of Rs.1323/- was issued to the complainant for January, 2018, which included the outstanding bill of the month of December.  However, due to non-payment of bills, the outgoing services on the number of complainant was barred only on 15.02.2018 and incoming services were barred on 05.03.2018 only.  It was further stated that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1200/- with the Opposite Party on 30.04.2018 and the remaining amount was waived off by the Company. It was further stated that the number provided to the complainant has been activated and converted from post-paid to pre-paid. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the replying Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing Counsel for the contesting parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.             We have heard the appellant/complainant in person, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

8.             The appellant/complainant has submitted that neither the appellant has telephoned on mobile No.5555 nor the respondent/Opposite Party issued any bill within three months before filing the complaint. He further prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

9.             After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

10.           The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum rightly passed the impugned order. It is the admitted fact that the appellant/complainant is subscriber of post-paid connection bearing No.78377-93178. Annexure R-1 is a copy of the bill w.e.f 01.12.2017 to 31.12.2017. From this document, it is proved that bill for an amount of Rs.910.80 was issued. It is also proved from the said document (at page No.16 of the Forum file) that Rs.522/- (Rs.513/- + Rs.9/-) was charged on account of calling, detail of which has been mentioned at page No.17 of the Forum file. Annexure R-2 is a copy of the bill for an amount of Rs.1323.80, which was issued for the period from 01.01.2018 to 31.01.2018. It is the admitted that the complainant paid the total amount of Rs.1200/- with the Opposite Party towards outstanding bill and the remaining outstanding amount was waived off by Vodafone. It is also the admitted fact that after giving a waiver of the outstanding amount, the mobile connection of the complainant was restored and on his request, the post-paid number of the complainant was converted to pre-paid connection.  The plea taken by the appellant/complainant that he has not telephoned on special number, as alleged by the Opposite Party has no value at all because no cogent evidence has been placed on record by the appellant/complainant to prove his case. So, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

11.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.

12.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

13.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

November 2^nd, 2018.                       Sd/-             

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

          PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

rb