Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/468/2015

Nitin Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone South Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Akshay Singh Adv.

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	468 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	25.8.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	29.4.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Nitin Sharma s/o Hari Ram Sharma r/o 165/1 Adarsh Nagar, Pipli Wala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

Vodafone sought Ltd. SCO 170-171, above appollo Clinic, Top floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. Parmod Kumar, Adv.  

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Ms. Parminder Kaur, Adv.  

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant for the purpose of converting his pre-paid Vodafone number into post paid number, called the customer care of the Opposite Party. Accordingly on 5.8.2015 its representative collected all the requisite documents, ID proof, photograph and signature on application of the complainant and issued a cash receipt of Rs.250/- for the said purpose and assured the complainant that the same would be activated within 24 hours.  It is alleged that on 6.8.2015 approximately after 24 ours the complainant’s Vodafone pre-paid number was not converted into Vodafone post number.  Thereafter the complainant made numerous calls to the customer care of the Opposite Party for activation of his post paid number but it lingered on the issue on one pretext or the other.  Ultimately after continuous pursuance of the complainant the Opposite Party activated the number on 21.8.2015 i.e. after a delay of 17 days though it was liable to activate the number within 72 hours from the date of filing the documents and deposit of the security charges.  Alleging the said act of OP as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

2 in M. Krishanan Versus General Manager, Telecom .  

3.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party made in the reply.
4.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.           We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6.     The Opposite Party has took objection that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case in view of Section 7-B of the India Telegraph Act. Thus the first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Forum has Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the instant consumer complaint or not. It may be stated here that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, vide letter No.J-24/11/2014-CPU dated 07.03.2014, had circulated a copy of letter No.2-17/2013-Policy-I dated 24.01.2014 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communications and IT, Department of Telecommunications, to the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, as well as State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions of all State Governments and U.Ts.  Paras No.4 & 6 of the said letter are reproduced as under:-

“4.    The matter has been examined in this Department. It is mentioned that the matter referred to in the Hon’ble Supreme Court (General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and Anr.) involved a dispute between Department of Telecommunications (DoT) as a service provider prior to the hiving off telecom services into a separate company namely Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). Since DoT was also the telegraph authority, reference was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the provisions of section 7B.  However, powers of the telegraph authority have neither been vested nor are available to private telecom service providers and BSNL. Therefore, recourse to section 7B in case of disputes between consumers and private service providers and BSNL would not be available. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment is sui generis in its application and has to be read with reference to the particular facts and circumstances of the case before it.

6.     In view of the above position, this Department is of the view that the request from Government of West Bengal proposing to consider preferring an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for making the position of law unambiguous in the context of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not required and the District Forums are competent to deal with the disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers.”

 

7.     Perusal of afore-extracted contents of the said letter reveal that the Consumer Foras are competent to deal with the disputes, arising between telecom consumers and telecom service providers. Thus, the objection taken by the Counsel for the OP, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. It is therefore held that this Forum has Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the instant complaint
8.     The next question which is required to be determined is as to whether  there is any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party in delaying the process of converting the pre-paid connection into post paid connection.  The Opposite Party in its reply itself has fairly admitted that it activated the post paid connection of the complainant on 21.8.2015 (which was applied on 5.8.2015) i.e. after more than two  weeks, which in our view is an inordinate delay on the part of the Opposite Party. It is true that the Opposite Party has to follow the guidelines of the Department of Telecommunication regarding the verification of the customer but yet in our opinion the Opposite Party should have acted in a speedy manner. Opposite Party itself admitted that its executive named Deepak went to the complainant’s house to collect the documents pertains to POA and POI (proof of Address and proof of identity) on 5.8.2015 but they denied the factum of issuing of any receipt for the  amount of Rs.250/- paid by the complainant to the said executive of the Opposite Party. Such denial of issuing receipt for the amount of Rs. 250/- collected from the complainant is wrong in view of the receipt placed on record by the complainant vide Annexure C-3. The Opposite Party has failed to justify the long time (i.e. 17 days) taken by it for the verification purpose only, which otherwise is  purposed to have been completed in 72 hours. The Opposite Party has not contradicted the allegation of delay in converting the pre paid connection into post paid connection by placing on record any cogent evidence in the shape of any notification or regulation permitting them to take unspecified time in the name of so called verifications, where the process of procuring the acquisition form was completed & fee for the said purpose had also been collected alongwith ID proof and other requisite documents on the very next day i.e. on 5.8.2015, when the proposal for converting pre-paid connection to post paid connection was made on 4.8.2015. In view of the above observation, definitely there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in delaying the activation of the connection in question for which they are liable to compensate the complainant.   
9.     We are of the concerted opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite party is  directed as under:-

        

a]  To pay compensation of Rs.7000/- to the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

b]  To pay Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 45 days of its receipt, failing which they it be liable to pay interest on the above awarded amount at (a) at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses. 

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

29.4.2016

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER