Punjab

Moga

CC/16/165

Vinay Kashyap - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone Mobile Services Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In person

26 Apr 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 165 of 2016

                                                                                      Instituted on: 30.11.2016

                                                                                      Decided on: 26.04.2017

 

Vinay Kashyap (aged 59 years) son of Sh.Dev Pal Kashyap son of Sh.Jai Ram Dass, resident of Basant Singh Road, Civil Lines, Moga, Tehsil and District Moga.

 

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, through its Authorized Representative, C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali- 160071.

 

2.       Vodafone Mini Store, Akalsar Road, Sardar Nagar, Moga, District Moga.

 

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Vinay Kashyap, complainant in person.

                   Sh. Vishal Jain, Advocate Cl. for opposite party no.1.

                   Opposite party no.2 ex-parte.

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, through its Authorized Representative, C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to send the bills of the connection well within time to avoid any penalty and to refund the security amount of Rs.3000/- alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of its deposit till the actual payment. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be awarded to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant is having mobile connection bearing no.99888-20680 in his name and the said connection is provided by opposite party no.1, through opposite party no.2. The connection in question is postpaid connection and as per the rules of the opposite parties and TRAI instructions, the opposite parties are bound to send the bills to its customers regularly, but however, since long, the bills of the connection in dispute are not being sent to the complainant inspite of various complaints lodged with opposite party no.2 by the complainant. The complainant sent telephonic messages to the opposite parties to send the bills of the connection, but all the times, the officials of the opposite parties felt sorry and assured that the bills will be sent regularly, but inspite of this fact, the bills were not being sent to the complainant. Thereafter for the next month, no bill was received by the complainant and the complainant deposited the amount of the bills against receipt as per SMS. On the very next date, the opposite parties sent messages that the bill will be reached to the complainant on 6.11.2016, but upto this date, the bill was not been received. In this way, from the last about 8 months, the opposite parties were not sending the consumption bills of the connection in dispute and in this way, the complainant could not deposit the amount and the opposite parties illegally banned the outgoing calls of the connection. Even on the protest lodged by the complainant, the opposite parties did not bother to send the bills and thereafter the opposite parties sent the bill and the same was deposited accordingly. Besides this, the complainant availed facility for the international roaming and deposited Rs.3000/- as security with opposite parties on 27.05.2016. In the end of June, 2016 the complainant deposited the original receipt with opposite parties with request to refund the security amount, as the he returned back to India from Australia, but said security amount was not refunded inspite of various reminders and telephonic messages to opposite parties. The opposite parties have wrongly withheld the security amount of Rs.3000/-. Repeated requests have been made to opposite parties to refund the security amount and also to send the bills of the connection in question, but to no effect. Due to the aforesaid illegal and unwarranted acts of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered huge mental tension and agony. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant has failed to disclose the cause of action regarding which the complaint is relating deficiency in service against the opposite party no.1; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The appropriate Forum for filing the present complaint by the complainant is under the provisions of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and the present tribunal/court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complainant while signing the customer agreement form has duly conferred the jurisdiction with his free consent upon the courts at Delhi and as such, the present complaint filed by the complainant before this Forum is not maintainable; that the complainant had made request for activation for the international roaming through opposite party no.2 and has duly deposited the amount of the international roaming security through opposite party no.2 only. The request for refund of the amount of security was also received by the company from opposite party no.2 on 29.10.2016 through e-mail and in pursuance to the request received from opposite party no.2, the company had duly processed the request for refund of security and after processing, they duly sent the cheque amount of Rs.3000/- to opposite party no.2 on 4.11.2016 and has duly sent the cheque amount of Rs.3000/- to opposite party no.2 on 4.11.2016, as such there is no lapse or delay on the part of opposite party company in processing the request for refund of security through opposite party no.2; that there is no cause of action has arisen against opposite party no.1, as the amount of refund was duly sent to opposite party no.2 on 4.11.2016 and the delay in releasing the same to the complainant is on the part of opposite party no.2. On merits, it is admitted correct to the extent that the mobile no.99888-20680 has been issued in the name of the complainant by the opposite party no.1, through opposite party no.2. It is submitted that in case the complainant still feels some difficulty in receiving the bills he has got an option to opt for e-bill through e-mail. It is submitted that the request of refund of the security on account of international roaming was received by opposite party no.1, through opposite party no.2 on 29.10.2016 vide e-mail dated 29.10.2016 and the same was processed immediately and the amount of refund of security was sent to opposite party no.2 on 4.11.2016 by opposite party no.1. Thus, there was no delay on the part of opposite party no.1 in processing the request for refund of the security amount. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

4.                On the other hand, Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Proprietor was appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 at the first instance. But thereafter, neither written reply on behalf of opposite party no.2 filed nor anybody appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. As such, opposite party no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.

5.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1, additional affidavit Ex.C-2 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. 

6.                On the other hand, opposite party no.1 tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Pushkal Chauhan, Authorized Signatory, M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

8.                It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant is consumer of opposite parties having a mobile connection bearing no.99888-20680 issued by opposite parties in the name of the complainant. It is further admitted that on 27.05.2016, the complainant deposited Rs.3000/- as security for international roaming with opposite parties and the same was to be refunded by them. After return from the Abroad, the complainant made request to opposite parties for the refund of the security amount deposited by him. On it, the version of the opposite party no.1 was that they received request for refund of the amount of security, through opposite party no.2 on 29.10.2016 and in pursuance to this request, they duly sent cheque of for an amount of Rs.3000/- to opposite party no.2 without any lapse or delay and they duly refunded the amount of security to complainant. But they have not produced any evidence or document on record to prove this version that they ever refunded this amount to complainant or opposite party no.2. So, this amount is still due towards opposite parties. The second grievance of the complainant is that as per rules and instructions of TRAI, the opposite parties are bound to send the bills regarding the usage to its customers every month, but the opposite parties failed to send bills to complainant regularly inspite of various complaints lodged by complainant with opposite parties and due to which, the complainant was unable to pay his mobile bills on time. On the other hand, opposite parties have not denied that they have not issued the bills to the complainant on time, rather they suggested the complainant for the option of e-billing, through e-mail. As per the instructions of TRAI, every telecommunication company is required to issue bills to their customers regularly on time. But the opposite parties failed to do so. All these acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.

9.                In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed and opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.3000/-, which was deposited by the complainant with them as security for international roaming with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till final realization. The opposite parties are further directed to issue mobile bills to complainant regularly on time. Further opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2500/-(Two thousand five hundred only) consolidate as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings against opposite parties under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 26.04.2017

                               (Bupinder Kaur)           (Vinod Bala)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                     Member                     Member                             President