| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.253 of 23-09-2019 Decided on 03-12-2019 Pankaj Kalia aged about 44 years S/o Kewal Krishan R/o Gali Qille Wali, Ferozepur City. ........Complainant Versus 1.Vodafone Store, Mall Road, Bathinda, through its Directing Manager/M.D/Authorized Signatory. 2.Vodafone Idea Limited, C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-8, Mohali, Punjab, through its Directing Manager/M.D/Authorized Signatory. 3.Vodafone Idea Limited, Regd. Office:- Suman Tower, Plot No.18, Sector No.11, Gandhinagar-382011, Gurjat, through its Directing Manager/M.D/Authorized Signatory. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Manisha, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Bharat Bhushan, Advocate. For opposite parties: Sh.Kuljit Pal Sharma, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Pankaj Kalia (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Vodafone Store and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he has postpaid mobile connection bearing No.9888238214 of opposite parties. He is using this connection since many years and he used to pay bills regularly online. He never became defaulter. It is alleged that when the complainant checked his bill online for the month of August 2019, he was surprise to see that opposite parties issued him bill for Rs.175/- and changed his connection plan on monthly charges from Rs.100/- to Rs.249/- without any intimation or his consent whereas they used to send the previous bills on the basis of monthly charges of Rs.100/-. They changed the connection plan without any intimation or his consent as for the month of July 2019, they sent the bill of Rs.128.51/- on the basis of plan of monthly charges of Rs.100/- and for the month of August 2019, they sent bill of Rs.175.82/- on the basis of plan of monthly charges of Rs.249/-. They charged excess amount of Rs.47.31/- from the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant approached opposite party No.1, it asked him to contact with opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Accordingly, on 2.9.2019, he sent e-mails to Vodafone Company Limited i.e. opposite party Nos.2 and 3 on their e-mail address and complained them about changing of plan without his prior intimation. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 sent reply to e-mail with the intimation that their customer service team will respondent to e-mail within 72 hours. On 2.9.2019, he again sent e-mail to opposite party Nos.2 and 3. On 4.9.2019, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 sent response to e-mail and admitted their fault and apologized and stated that they will reversed Rs.57.82/-, but till date nothing has been paid to the complainant. It amounts to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. It is also alleged that the complainant has alleged that due to act and conduct of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered from mental tension, agony, pain, humiliation, harassment and financial loss. For these sufferings, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to litigation cost to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In their joint written version, opposite parties have raised the preliminary objections that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has failed to show deficiency in providing him services on his mobile No.9888238214. They never charged any excess amount for usage of services on the given mobile number. The complainant was earlier using Corp 100 Plan_2 under which he was being issued bills accordingly. This plan was changed to Red Business_249 with Rs.100/- rental discount on the given number. This tariff plan was changed/amended as per the existing TRAI norms by opposite parties. Thereafter the complainant was charged according to the new plan only as earlier plan was no longer in existence. The complainant was duly informed through SMS dated 31.7.2019. It is also asserted that the plan was changed by the company as per Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) notification dated 21.3.2006 as plan can change after exceeding 6 months period by the service provider. The old plan is no longer in existence with opposite parties. It is also pleaded that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that as per the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case title General Manager, Telecom Versus M. Krishnan and Ors. The compensation sought by the complainant is not only exorbitant, but an attempt by him to blow the issue out of proportion. The hypothetical and frivolous versions with respect to compensation claimed are not only without any basis, but also not substantiated by any evidence. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is using SIM. In further written version, opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in the preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, they have prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 23.9.2019, (Ex.C1); photocopies of bills, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3); photocopies of e-mails, (Ex.C4, Ex.C5 and Ex.C7) and photocopies of reply to e-mails, (Ex.C6 and Ex.C8). To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Manoj Madan dated 12.11.2019, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of notification, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of process dated 31.7.2019, (Ex.OP1/3); photocopy of SIM account statement, (Ex.OP1/4). We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions carefully. Admitted facts are that the complainant is availing services of opposite parties regarding mobile connection bearing No.9888238214. Earlier, he was availing plan with monthly charges of Rs.100/-. Bill, (Ex.C2) issued on 1.8.2019 proves this fact. Bill, (Ex.C3) is issued on 1.9.2019 wherein opposite parties have mentioned monthly charges as Rs.249/-. The version of the complainant is that he had never opted for this plan and opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have also never obtained his consent for this plan. Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, are e-mails vide which the complainant has raised this issue with opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Ex.C6, is response of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 wherein they assured that their service team will response to e-mail within 72 hours. This e-mail is dated 2.9.2019. Ex.C7, is another e-mail whereby the complainant again raised issue. Ex.C8, is response of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 whereby they intimated the complainant that old plan is withdrawn from the market. Hence, they are unable to activate the same. The point for determination is whether opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have intimated the complainant regarding withdrawal of earlier plan or have obtained his consent regarding change of plan. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have tried to justify their action under the garb of notification, (Ex.OP1/2). From the perusal of this notification also, there is nothing to show that opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are at liberty to change the plan at their own, which is disadvantageous to subscriber. The main reliance of the OP's is on message dated 31.7.2019, (Ex.OP1/3). As per opposite parties, customer was intimated vide this plan. From perusal of this message, it is noticed that customer was intimated that 'the current plan is not longer valid. New plan offers unlimited local, national and roaming minutes and 2 GB data benefits in monthly renatal Govt. 149. Applicable w.e.f. tomorrow. Please contact customer care for more details'. From this message, it can not be inferred by any stretch of imagination that the complainant has accepted this plan or consented for this plan. Therefore, it is to be held that change of plan on the basis of SMS, which is not after consent of the complainant, amounts to deficiency in services. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 will be at liberty to continue with the plan only after obtaining the consent of the complainant and in case of non-consent of the complainant, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 can act accordingly. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 03-12-2019 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Manisha) Member
| |
