Complaint Case No. CC/333/2013. Case: Uttam Kumar Samanta Vs Vodafone India Ltd. and Ors.. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Complaint Case No. CC/333/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Devyani Ashra, Advocate |
| Judges | Samaresh Prasad Chowdhury, (Presiding Member) |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 11, 17, 21 |
| Judgement Date | April 12, 2017 |
| Court | West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Samaresh Prasad Chowdhury, (Presiding Member), (Kolkata)
-
The instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, 'the Act') is at the instance of the complainant against the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 for deficiency in providing internet connection in respect of a post-paid internet service plan and against opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 for their failure for an effective mechanism and to revisit the policies for better treatment of the consumers.
-
In a nutshell, the Complainant's case is that on 07.05.2013 he has purchased a post paid internet service plan from OP No. 2, authorised store of OP No. 1. For the purpose of internet service, OP No. 2/OP No. 1 gave the complainant a data card SIM and a device for which they charged Rs. 5,500/-. The complainant states that after purchase the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 never informed him that all transactions are final and no refund would be made. On payment of Rs. 5,000/- on 07.05.2013, they issued him printed receipt. On 08.05.2013 the date card was activated and internet service was started. On 09.05.2013 a bill was sent by email. On 10.05.2013 interest service was suddenly disconnected and stopped by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 without any intimation or message to him. Due to such sudden disconnection, the complainant alleged that he has suffered irreparably and for such deficiencies on the part of the OP Nos. 1 & 2, he has come up in this Commission with prayer for compensation of Rs. 99,95,500/-.
-
OP Nos. 1 & 2 by filing a written version disputed the claim of the complainant stating that the reliefs claimed by the complainant are not cognizable by this Commission. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 have stated that in absence of a valid address proof...
To continue reading
Request your trial