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|
|Party Name:||Uttam Kumar Samanta Vs Vodafone India Ltd. and Ors.|
|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|
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 and proof of residence, they could not activate the connection. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 have specifically submitted that the connection was availed by the complainant on 08.05.2013 and the first address verification was made on 09.05.2013 and as the complainant was not residing in the given address, the connection was not activated.
I have seen the pleading of the parties and the evidence led by them. Besides complainant, only OP No. 3 participated at the time of final hearing and OP Nos. 1 & 2 were found absent when the record called on for hearing. I have heard the complainant in person and Ld. Advocate for OP No. 3.
The complainant read out the vital portion of the petition of complaint and the evidence including documentary...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL