Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/66/2014

Mohandoss - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone Store, - Opp.Party(s)

L.Murali

02 Apr 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 05.02.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 02.04.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP. : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.66/2014

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 02^ND DAY OF APRIL 2019

                                 

Mr. Mohandoss,

S/o. Mr. K. Palanisamy,

No.3, Gopal Street,

Annai Indira Nagar,

Velachery,

Chennai – 600 042.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                 

 

                                                                                          ..Versus..

 

1. The Manager,

Vodafone Store,

No.86/198, Velachery Main Road,

Anna Garden,

Chennai – 600 042.

 

2. The Nodal Officer,

M/s. Vodafone India Limited,

Having Circle Office at:

Tower 1, 9^th Floor,

TVH Beliciaa Tower,

Block 9, MRC Nagar,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant         : M/s. L. Murali & another

Counsel for the opposite parties   : Mr. A. Palaniappan

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pray to resolve the issue of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he was a prepaid customer under the 2^nd opposite party for the mobile No.9944655910 since August 2013 onwards.  Initially, the complainant was the customer of the Bharathi Airtel Limited in the year 2008.  In the month of August 2013, the complainant changed the network on applying MNP (Mobile Number Portability) through the 2^nd opposite party who debited a sum of Rs.20/- towards such charges and gave change of network with confirmation message. The 1^st opposite party gave a new Sim card No.899840042132665330 which was not activated.   While approaching the 1^st opposite party claiming activation another new Sim card bearing No.8991430004512978895 was given and was duly activated and  utilized by the complainant without interruption till 1^st week of December 2013.  Thereafter, through the said mobile number the complainant is not able to receive the incoming calls, SMS, and make outgoing calls.  Thereby, the total function of the mobile number is inoperative. Due to that, the complainant missed all incoming communications resulting loss of image which caused great mental agony.  On 18.12.2013, the complainant sent an email to the 2^nd opposite party requesting them to settle the problem.  But the 2^nd opposite party sent a reply dated:19.12.2013 stating that the said mobile number was deactivated for the simple reason alleged is not operated for more than 90 days.   Hence, the complainant again sent an email with full details of usage.   For which, the opposite party has not sent any reply.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The  opposite parties state that as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 in General Manager Telecom -Versus- M. Krishnan & another and reported in 2009 CPJ IV SC, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the dispute relating to telephone issues in the light of special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act.  Similarly, as per SLP (Civil) No(s). 24577/2010 it is held that “any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only.  The Judgement of the Supreme Court is binding on all the subordinate courts.  There is no scope for interference.   Dismissed”.

3.     The opposite parties state that the complainant is the prepaid customer of Bharti Airtel Ltd., under mobile No.9944655910.  Thereafter when the mobile number portability was made available, the customers had the liberty to avail the service of any other service provider by retaining the same mobile number after submitting the required documents.  In the present case, the complainant who was using the Bharti Airtel service wanted to switch to Vodafone service with the same number.   Accordingly, he made a request to port out to Bharti Airtel.  As per his request, the Bharti Airtel has deducted Rs.20/- from his account.  It is pertinent to mention that the complainant has not paid any consideration to this answering opposite party for Mobile Number Portability.   The Mobile Number Portability itself a new scheme, which has to be done entirely through electronic systems, that has a specific waiting period for every customer before activation of his mobile number from the former service provider to the new service provider.  In fact, the answering opposite party has duly helped the complainant to their best effect and rendered all service and assistance without any delay which is clearly evident from the statement of the complainant where he has stated that he has used his same mobile number after porting into the opposite party’s network from August 2013 to December 2013 without any interruption.  In the first week of December 2013, the complainant has approached this opposite party for redressal stating that he was not able to receive incoming calls and SMS but he was able to make outgoing calls.   On receipt of the information, this opposite party immediately investigated the matter and found that it is caused due to a technical snag.  The said technical snag was not unique to the complainant but along with 5 other MNP customers of this opposite party and reverted their number to their respective former service providers. However in the meanwhile, the complainant continued using his mobile number to send SMS as well as to make outgoing calls to other phones.  

4.     The opposite parties state that the complainant to approach the former service provider viz. Bharti Airtel to take steps to correct the technical snag.  The complainant for the best known reasons has sent an email dated:18.12.2013 reiterating his request without considering the solution given by this opposite party.  On receipt of the complainant’s email this opposite party has taken up the issue with due promptness and sent a reply mail communication dated:19.12.2013 where it has specifically mentioned that “We request you to visit Airtel showroom with your documents for activating the number.  Kindly find the Airtel SPOC details for your further assistance – Mr. Manikandan,” As mentioned in the reply e-mail the answering opposite party has clearly stated the contact person at former service provider Airtel for reference and for the prompt solution of the technical snag.  The complainant has not approached his former service provider Bharti Airtel.   Infact, this opposite party was continuously in contact of the complainant’s former service provider Airtel through e-mail and appraised them continuously about the problem faced by the complainant and repeatedly requested them to resolve the issue.  This opposite party even provided the docket number of the request made to the Airtel for ready reference of the complainant to follow up.  The opposite parties state that it is an admitted fact by the complainant himself that he is able to make outgoing calls and his only grievance is that he is not able to receive any calls.   Further his request to recharge his mobile number through online recharge for Rs.10/- was also duly credited to his account enabling him to utilize the service without any hindrance.   This opposite party has rendered all possible service and support for the complainant, on the other hand due to the complainant lethargic attitude he was not able to set right the issue with his former service provider Airtel.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked.  Inspite of sufficient time is given the opposite parties has not filed his proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version and hence it is concluded as ‘No Proof Affidavit’ on the side of the opposite parties.

6.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

 

 

7.      On point:-

The opposite parties after entering into appearance filed their written version.  Thereafter, the opposite parties miserably failed to file proof affidavit and documents to prove the contentions raised in the written version.  The complainant filed his proof affidavit, written argument etc.  Perused the records namely; the compliant, written version, proof affidavit and documents of the complainant.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he was a prepaid customer under the 2^nd opposite party for the mobile No.9944655910.  Initially, the complainant was the customer of the Bharathi Airtel Limited in the year 2008.  In the month of August 2013, the complainant changed the network on applying MNP (Mobile Number Portability) through the 2^nd opposite party who debited a sum of Rs.20/- towards such charges and gave change of network with confirmation message. The 1^st opposite party gave a new Sim card No.899840042132665330 which was not activated.   While approaching the 1^st opposite party claiming activation another new Sim card bearing No.8991430004512978895 was given and was duly activated and  utilized by the complainant without interruption till 1^st week of December 2013.  Thereafter, through the said mobile number the complainant is not able to receive the incoming calls, SMS, and make outgoing calls.  Thereby, the total function of the mobile number is inoperative.  Due to that, the complainant missed all incoming communications resulting loss of image which caused great mental agony.  On 18.12.2013, the complainant sent an email as per Ex.A1 to the 2^nd opposite party requesting them to settle the problem.  But the 2^nd opposite party sent a reply dated:19.12.2013 as per Ex.A2 stating that the said mobile number was deactivated for the simple reason alleged is not operated for more than 90 days.   Hence, the complainant again sent an email dated:20.12.2013 as per Ex.A3 with full details of usage.   For which, the opposite party has not sent any reply.  Mere deactivation of SIM card without any intimation amounts to deficiency in service. 

8.     The contention raised by the opposite parties in their written version is that as per the decision reported by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 in General Manager Telecom –Versus- M. Krishnan & another and reported in 2009 CPJ IV SC, this Forum has no jurisdiction  to try the dispute relating to telephone issues in the light of special remedy provided in Section 7-B of  the Indian Telegraph Act.  Similarly, as per SLP (Civil) No(s). 24577/2010 it is held that “any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only”.  But the opposite parties has not produced any such citation in this Forum.   On the other hand, the complainant and the opposite parties has not produced the agreement showing the option of arbitral proceedings.  Equally, both parties has not taken to steps to settle hthe dispute before the telegraph authority.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties shall activate the mobile Sim Card No.8991430004512978895 within one month and shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to activate the mobile Sim Card No.8991430004512978895 within one month and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 02^nd day of April 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	18.12.2013	Copy of e-mail
Ex.A2	19.12.2013	Copy of reply mail
Ex.A3	20.12.2013	Copy of recharge mail

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:- ‘No Proof Affidavit’

 

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT