Case Title: Shajin P.V. vs Vodafone Idea Ltd.; CC/193/2023
In the Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a consumer complaint against Vodafone Idea Ltd. was allowed.
The dispute arose from a prepaid recharge made by a consumer, where the consumer expected to receive 2GB of data daily for 56 days, based on a promotional offer, after purchasing a recharge plan for Rs. 479/-. However, the actual data provided was only 1.5GB per day, which fell short of the promised amount.
Despite the consumer’s efforts to resolve the issue, Vodafone did not take any action. Upon contacting Vodafone customer care, the consumer was informed that no such offer existed, and that the offer in question only provided 1.5GB of data per day. To address the issue, the consumer, Shajin, emailed Vodafone and attached a screenshot of the original offer he had received. However, his attempts to resolve the matter were left unanswered, resulting in a loss of opportunities for his research and entertainment activities that he had planned to undertake with the 2GB of data per day.
Due to Vodafone’s failure to address his grievance, the complainant alleged that he experienced mental distress and harassment, leading him to file a consumer complaint. Despite being served a notice, the Opposite Party (Vodafone) failed to appear before the commission and did not provide any response. In light of Vodafone’s absence, the commission proceeded with the case ex-parte.
The Commission considered the complaint based on the evidence submitted, since Vodafone (opposite party) did not respond. They examined the evidence, including exhibits that clearly showed that Rs. 479/- recharge should have given the complainant 2GB of data per day, along with other benefits. Additional evidence highlighted the complainant’s attempts to access the service he had already paid for.
Ultimately, the commission concluded that Vodafone failed to provide the promised service. As for the complainant’s claims that he couldn’t engage in research and entertainment activities due to the offer not being honoured, the Commission noted that he couldn’t provide specific evidence to substantiate his losses. Consequently, the commission found Vodafone Idea Ltd. responsible for the deficiency in service. They directed Vodafone to compensate the complainant with Rs. 10,000/- as redress for the service deficiency. Further, it was provided that if Vodafone failed to comply with this order, the complainant was given the right to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Author of this article:
Adv. Ravish Bhatt,
Partner, R&D Law Chambers,
Dual Qualified Lawyer Solicitor | International Tax Affiliate

Connect with Mr. Bhatt on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adit-ravishbhatt/

  • Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader or user should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information written above without first seeking legal advice from qualified law practitioner.
SideMenu