Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/226/2018

Sh. Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone Mobiles Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

31 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	226 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	19.04.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	31.08.2018

 

 

 

 

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

 

             ……..Complainant

Versus

 

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

 

……. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

                                SH. RAVINDER SINGH        MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Complainant in person.

Ms.navjot Kaur, Adv. proxy for Ms.Parminder Kaur, Adv. for OP

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                The case of the complainant, briefly is that the complainant is subscriber of Mobile Connection No.7837793178 provided by OP Company.  It is averred that in Dec., 2017, the Opposite Party sent a bill of said mobile connection to the complainant  for Rs.910.96 wherein a single call of 57 minutes & 10 seconds has been mentioned and Rs.513/- has been charged against it.  It is also submitted that the second bill was for Rs.1348.30 and since the complainant was unable to pay the said amount, the OP closed the said number of complainant.  It is stated that the Opposite Party has wrongly charged him for the call which he has never made.  Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant was having post-paid connection No.78377-93178 and was issued bill dated 1.1.2018 for the period from 1.12.2017 to 31.12.2017 for an amount of Rs.910/- for Dec., 2017.  It is 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 charges Rs.9/- (Ann.R-1).  It is also stated that another bill dated 1.2.2018 for the period 1.1.2018 to 31.1.2018 of Rs.1323/- was issued to the complainant for Jan., 2018 which includes the previous outstanding bill of December month.  It is further stated that due to non-payment of bills, the outgoing services on the number of complainant was barred only on 15.2.2018 and incoming services were barred on 5.3.2018 only.  It is submitted that the complainant paid Rs.1200/- with OPs on 30.4.2018 towards outstanding bill amount and the remaining amount has been waived off by the company. It is also submitted that the number provided to the complainant has been activated and converted from post-paid to pre-paid.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant alleged in the compliant that the OPs have raised excessive bill against his post-paid mobile connection and due to non-payment of bill raised by the OPs, his connection was disconnected illegally. 

 

6]       It is the reply of the OPs that the bills in dispute were raised as per the usage of the complainant.  It is in the reply as well submitted in the arguments by the Opposite Party that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.1200/- against his outstanding bill and after giving a waiver of remaining amount, the mobile connection of the complainant has been restored and as per his request, it has been converted to pre-paid connection from post-paid.  It is claimed that the Opposite Party is not liable for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

7]       The complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party by leading cogent documentary evidence.  Moreover, the matter in question has also been resolved.  In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be dismissed being without any merit.  Accordingly, the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

31^st August, 2018                                       

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER