‘Consumer courts can settle cases against telecom operators’

In the case,the Commission had ruled that the mobile phone was covered under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and as such the consumer forum had no jurisdiction to try the case. The commission,however,did not find any merit in the argument and passed the judgement against the telecom operator.

The case pertains to Arvind Single,a resident of Sector 38-C. In his complaint,Single told the forum that he had received a number of his choice from Vodafone after payment of Rs 5,100 as fee in January 2009. And though he paid bills till June 13,2009,his phone stopped working on June 16. When he contacted the company,he was told his number had been issued to somebody else for non-payment of bills.

Counsel for the company,in his reply,said services to his mobile were deactivated as the complainant did not pay the bill for the period between April 9 and May 8,2009. The counsel claimed that after the mobile number was withdrawn,the complainant made a payment of Rs 1,000 against the pending bills. The forum,however,maintained that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the company in not sending the bill to the complainant and in disconnecting the telephone without any notice.

Delivering the order,Mahal directed Vodafone to immediately reactivate the connection of the consumer and pay him Rs 5,000 for the mental harassment caused to him.

The forum also directed the company to not charge any the complainant for the period his phone remained disconnected and pay him Rs 1,100 as litigation costs.