DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 28th ay of March, 2023.
Filed on: 16/02/2017
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. NO. 73/2017
COMPLAINANT
Minimol.P.R, W/o. Johny Joseph, Pazhanilath House, Cheranellure .P.O, Kochi, Kerala
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. Vodafone India Limited represented by its Circle Head, Circle Head Office, Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, 4th Floor, Angels Arcade, South Kalamasserry, Cochin University P.O. Kochi-682 022.
2. Regional Manager, Vodafone India Ltd, Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, 4 Floor, Angels Arcade, South Kalamasserry, Cochin University P.O., Kochi-682 022.
3. Priyajith, C.R.M. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, 4th Floor, Angels Arcade, South Kalamasserry, Cochin University P.O, Kochi-682 022.
4. Sandhya, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Nodal Office, Kalamasserry. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, 4th Floor, Angels Arcade, South Kalamasserry, Cochin University P. O, Kochi-682 022.
(OP No. 1, 2, 3 & 4 Rep. by Adv. P. Sathisan, 1st Floor, Patel Complex, Near High Court Junction, Ernakulam)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant herein is working as a Senior Manager (Insurance) in Punjab National Bank (PNB) MetLife. She is one of PNB MetLife's all-India top sales professionals and has been in the financial services job for the past 12 years. Based on her stock market-related professional advice they would deposit their money in share-related Equity trading Funds and other stock-related online financial sectors. Accordingly, the Complainant in delivering her professional advice, stock market updates, and similar services to her clients through her Mobile phone and internet-enabled Email services using her mobile connection (number 9495792204) provided by Vodafone India Limited, the opposite party. The Complainant, for the past 8 years, has been using the same number shown above, with a connection provided by IDEA Cellular Services. Seeing an advertisement and other attractive offers promised by the Opposite Party. The complainant applied for porting her IDEA Cellular connection to Vodafone India Limited opposite party and the same was carried out in August 2016. The complainant paid all the dues with her former service provider (IDEA Mobile) and got her number ported with the Opposite party. The Opposite Party also admitted that the complainant owes no dues to the former service provider and hence activated the connection. On the 1st day itself the Complainant had lodged a complaint to the opposite party (customer care official) it was duly recorded. The Illegal disconnection was brought to the notice of the Relationship Manager concerned (Mr.Jyothish) on the same day. He informed the complainant that the reason for the abrupt disconnection was due to the failure on the part of the opposite party to upload the complainant's dues clearance receipt in their system. Even though the opposite parties failed to promptly update the complainant's payment, she had to send the payment details again to the opposite party to get her connection and internet service restored. However, after five days 30th September morning, the opposite party illegally disconnected the complainant's mobile and internet service again for the other verbal intimation despite the second time without any notice. The complainant provided the payment details such as the IDEA receipt to the opposite party's office to ensure that no such recurrence or trouble happens to her which is interrupting her job, service, and her income. The complainant again had to repeat the whole exercise of calling the opposite party's customer care officials’ numbers and available Vodafone contacts to restore her connection and internet. After long marathon efforts, her connection was restored at 1.54 pm. But surprisingly, deactivated the opposite party disconnected the complainant's SIM, and terminated her connection illegally for no fault of the complainant despite all aforesaid best efforts in the past two disconnections. The opposite party disrupted the complainant's connection three times in one month period and finally terminated her connection and deactivated the complainant's SIM on 10/10/2016.On inquiry, the opposite party informed the complainant that her SIM is no more valid as it was deactivated and terminated. While checking, why her connection was deactivated, the opposite party confessed that it was a failure on their part as the officials who received the payment receipt from the complainant failed to mail the same to the department concerned. The Relationship Manager concerned requested not to complain about this termination of SIM to his higher officials as he feared the loss of his employment. Considering his plight, the complainant desisted from filing a complaint but requested the RM to restore her connection forthwith. But surprisingly the said RM and his supervisor called and informed them after the lapse of six hours and told them that they are helpless to restore her mobile connection as the SIM in the opposite party’s local office was the only option left to the complainant. After the complainant was advised by their Relationship Manager, the Complainant contacted the opposite party and promised to call back and the complainant was sent to the opposite party in an effort to restore the connection. The Customer care official Mr. Priyajith was contacted and accordingly the RM. He listened to the full story and said RM or the opposite party never contacted the complainant to mediate a solution. But alarmingly, thereafter the complainant called the said RM on his mobile six times. The complainant received a response to her complaint on the second day from the VODAFONE Nodal Officer who said the issue of the complainant will be resolved within seven working days, without understanding the revenue loss that could happen to the customer while the complainant remains without mobile and internet connection for such a long period. The opposite party company is now also serving the customers like Red-tapism in the government sector. The complainant had explained to the Nodal Officer that she is working in the sales department of PNB MetLife and she has annual, quarterly, monthly, and weekly sales targets. She further informed them that even a single day without a mobile and internet connection could adversely affect her weekly sales business as mobile and email are the main tools in sales and marketing in her job. Finally, it leads to the loss of her target in the month also.
Since the Nodal Officer refused to pick up the complainant's calls in the next three days, she wanted to talk to someone who is an authority. Hence, she demanded the contact number of the State Circle Head (circle head) but the local office at Kalamassery denied access. The carrier and call records tracking the Complainant that she used to provide advice abroad and in parts and when the phone got disrupted the entire calls were stopped. Due to the negligent act of the opposite party’s customer care officers, and other officials, this complainant faced unexplainable difficulties and miserable service problems since the porting. The complainant and her husband had to call almost all higher officials of the opposite party company several times and requested for getting immediate reconnection. This complainant used her husband's Email id and mobile phone for contacting the customer care officers and also the higher officials of the opposite party company. The Complainant's husband is a Senior Journalist and also this Complainant sent several emails to the opposite parties for the speedy redressal of the complaint. Even after several calls, the opposite party company's higher officials intervened in this issue and one of them sent an email stating that they made a mistake and they will never repeat the same offense. But even after the high-level officials’ intervention, this unfortunate customer could not get the reconnection in time. The complainant had approached this Commission seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,00000 (Rupees Ten lakhs only) to the complainant for her mental agony, deficiency in service, and loss of revenue.
2). Notices
Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notice and filed their versions. Notice sent to 3rd opposite party was returned for want of correct address. Even though directions were given to the complainant on different dates of posting, the complainant had not filed the correct address of 3rd opposite party. While thus on 30/11/2017, the then presiding officer posted the case on list for evidence and thereafter on 18/07/2018 the evidence of opposite parties was closed.
3) VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1,2 &4
The Opposite Parties disconnected the service connection on getting notification from M/S Idea Cellular limited, the donor Service Provider that there is an outstanding dues with M/s Idea against the connection, and without clearing the same the Service cannot be continued as per MNP Regulations. Further, the authorities of arbitration as per the provision of the India Telegraph Act oust the jurisdiction of this commission. The first opposite party provides a normally acceptable standard of service to subscribers. The terms and conditions of Service govern the subject matter issue. the mobile number portability is being handled by a specific department/ vertical of the Company as required by Government Authorities since MNP is a very sensitive procedure. In the case on hand, as per MNP guidelines M/s Idea called upon for a disconnection specifying the outstanding. The intimations to different officials with opposite parties is totally an evasive statement that cannot be having any conclusiveness as well. The statement that the complainant cleared the outstanding and on the above basis the connection ought to have been restored back is a baseless submission of the complainant. The complainant never provided the proof of payment made to M/s Idea Cellular limited before this opposite Party and in the concerned department handling MNP with whom the complainant had been interacting. As per records of this opposite party, except for vague statements of the Complainant, there were no authentic proofs with respect to payment of the Service Charge to M/s Idea Cellular Limited. The allegation about the frequent and abrupt disruptions of mobile service thrusting the Complainant with revenue loss etc. are false and denied. The connections were restored as a gesture of goodwill insisting on producing the proof of remittance to M/s Idea. On failure to produce the same, the connection was finally deactivated. The allegations about deficiency in service by not returning the call of the Complainant made to the Relationship Manager and the like are baseless and denied. The demands of the Complainant, without providing proper proof of clearing the arrears to M/s Idea had no sustainability. Till 12th November 2016, the concerned MNP department of this Opposite Party was not provided with any proof of remittance by the complainant with M/s Idea Cellular Limited. Though the complainant was intimated of this, she did not care to fulfill the requirement. The statement about losses to the complainant due to non-availability of mobile and internet connection etc. are baselessly alleged and hence denied. The statements about consultation with foreign clients and disruption to the same are also false and denied. As a gesture of Customer Service all sorts of communications to clear up the difficulties projected by the Complainant had been issued by the Opposite Party without exhaustive enquiry. The loss alleged of Rs 10 Lakhs is baseless and hence denied. The complainant herein did not sustain any loss or damages. The self-claimed declaration of the Complainant that she is an elite Customer etc. is denied.
4). Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 10 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-10.
Exbt. A1: The true copy of the complaint given to the opposite party
Exbt. A2. The true copy of the call log.
Exbt. A3. The true copy of the email from the higher official of the opposite party.
Exbt. A4. The true copy of the T.D.S FORM NO 16 issued by the Income Tax Dept.
Exbt. A5. The true copy of the email from the higher official of the complainant company.
Exbt. A6. The true copies of the other emails sent to the opposite party company (SERIES).
Exbt. A7. The true copy of receipt dated 25/10/2016
Exbt. A8. Copy of e-mail communication
Exbt. A9. Copy of Id proof (PNB Metlife)
Exbt. 10. True copy of the Passport
The opposite party 1, 2, and 4 had filed a proof affidavit and produced 1 document that was marked as Exhibits-B-1.
Exhibit B1 - Copy of the request from M/s Idea seeking for disconnection.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant produced true copies of the documents including the emails from the opposite parties to the Complainant. (Exhibits A-3). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
The counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party's frequent and abrupt disruptions of mobile and internet service have caused unexplainable revenue loss to the complainant. on 25/09/2016the Opposite Party disconnected the complainant's mobile and internet connection without any reason or intimation, causing an interruption in the service and her professional service too which resulted in incurring huge losses to the complainant. The complainant had to remain without a mobile connection and internet service for long four days and nights. The complainant had to call more than 41 times and send several reminders to get her issue resolved and finally she got a new SIM and connection with the same number on the fourth day. This illegal disconnection was against the TRAI Rules and it cannot be tolerated by a high-profile banking professional. This innocent customer is a higher official in a banking institution and her service is necessary for the employer bank for all most all the time, and also in this job sector her every second is Invaluable and precious. And she is answerable to the higher officials also. Due to the negligent act, the illegal disconnection of the mobile and internet connection this credibility, and given the reputed bank manager lost her high management for not working properly on the phone disconnected show cause notice by the bank days, and finally, this innocent customer of the opposite party mobile company had a loss of a huge revenue in that month, besides inconvenience, mental distress, waste of valuable time. And she also lost her target in the month. The inaction on the part of the Opposite Party is evidence of their deficiency of the service and negligence on their part The deficiency of the Opposite party caused the Complainant a loss of Rupees 10 lakhs approximately. Due to the irresponsible and negligent act of the opposite party company and its officers, this Complainant was forced to remain without a phone for several days. Altogether the Complainant's phone number was absolutely in a blackout status for several days. Though the Complainant submitted several complaints, emails, and other telephonic complaints nothing has been done by the Opposite Party. This is also a violation of TRAI Rules and Regulations and also the normal legal rights of an Elite customer like this complainant. This complainant’s senior official also gave a MEMO to this complainant for that month’s bad business and loss of target due to the irresponsible disconnection by the opposite party mobile service provider. The Opposite Party is the telephone provider and they are bound to provide a proper and undisrupted connection facility to the complainant in accordance with the regulations of TRAI.
The counsel for the Opposite Parties on enquiry it was revealed that the payment proof was not received by the MNP department. There were no disconnections as alleged. The disconnection had been on account of the non-furnishing of payment proof to M/s Idea by the complaint to the MNP department of the Company. The projected losses and other inconveniences, mental distress, etc. are false and denied.
The Commission upon verification of all the details produced from either side and also on verification of the facts of the case with the available records have reached the inference that the complainant had undergo mental strain and had undergone deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties. Hence the Commission passed orders as follows:-
1. The 1st opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the complainant as compensation for the hardships and inconveniences suffered by the complainant.
2. An amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant towards the cost of proceedings.
The above amounts shall be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within 30 days, failing which amount ordered vide Sl. No. (1) shall attract interest at the rate of 5.5% from the date of receipt of this order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. K.P. Liji, transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of March, 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exbt. A1: The true copy of the complaint given to the opposite party
Exbt. A2. The true copy of the call log.
Exbt. A3. The true copy of the email from the higher official of the opposite party.
Exbt. A4. The true copy of the T.D.S FORM NO 16 issued by the Income Tax Dept.
Exbt. A5. The true copy of the email from the higher official of the complainant company.
Exbt. A6. The true copies of the other emails sent to the opposite party company (SERIES).
Exbt. A7. The true copy of receipt dated 25/10/2016
Exbt. A8. Copy of e-mail communication
Exbt. A9. Copy of Id proof (PNB Metlife)
Exbt. 10. True copy of the Passport
OPPOSITE PARTIES’ EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 73/2017
Order Date: 28/03/2023
