Case nº First Appeal No. 193 Of 2014, (Against the Order dated 12/02/2014 in Complaint No. 214/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 28, 2016 (case Vivek Bharadwaj Vs 1. Vodafone Essar East Ltd and Ors. 2. Vodafone South Limited)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Sanjoy Kr. Ghosh, Advocate and Ms Rupali Ghosh, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr.Aditya Narain, Advocate and Mr. Arnav Narain, Advocate and Mr. Mishra Rajshekhar, Adv.
PresidentMr. K.S. Chaudhari,Presiding Member
Resolution DateNovember 28, 2016
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

  1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Complt. No. 214/2013 -- Vivek Bharadwaj Vs. Vodafone Essar East Ltd. & 3 ors. by which, complaint was dismissed.

  2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Appellant being a customer of Vodafone/Respondent mobile service provider and having the Vodafone Mobile No. 9830143700, received a bill of Rs. 1,427.92 for the months of July and August, 2013 with the stipulation of payment of the bill by 08.08.2013. Allegedly, the Complainant found on 08.08.2013 morning that there was no connection and the Complainant having immediately contacted the OP No. 1 for knowing the reason for their arbitrary and abrupt action towards disconnection within the stipulated date of payment, was told that his 'disconnection request' had been forwarded for processing, vide registration No. 1386601092. The Complainant, vide his e-mail message dated 8.8.2013, requested the OP service provider to immediately restore the connection, which stood deactivated. It is also alleged that he never requested for disconnection of his telephone service, not to speak of having received any notice in any manner as per Clause-7 of the Notification dated 21.3.2006 (File No. 305-R/2004/QOS) which provides that "where the service provider unilaterally intends to restrict or cease service to the customer, a notice shall be provided to the customer in advance of such action so that the customer has reasonable time to take preventive action to avoid restriction or cessation of service". OPs paid no heed to his request for restoration of service. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before State Commission for claiming compensation. OPs appeared and submitted application and stated that complaint is not maintainable in the light of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing parties allowed application and dismissed complaint against which, this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

  3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

  4. None appeared for respondent no. 4 and he was proceeded ex-parte.

  5. As there is delay of only 7 days in filing appeal, delay stands condoned for...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT