Pune: Consumer panel directs Vodafone to pay compensation to customer for service deficiency

Pune: A consumer panel has directed Vodafone Idea to pay compensation of Rs 50,000 to its customer for deficiency in service.

The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has directed the telecom firm to charge the aggrieved at the 2-G rate for the 4-G service during January 1, 2018-August 3, 2022 and refund the remaining amount to him.

The directive was issued by Commission President Anil Javalekar and Members Sarita Patil and Shubhangi Dunakhe. They also ordered the company to pay him Rs 10,000 compensation and Rs 3,000 against the expenses incurred on the litigation. Vodafone Idea was told to implement the order within 45 days after receiving its copy, failing which Rs 500 would be charged per month.

Chandrashekhar Joshi, a resident of Baner, approached the Commission against the telecom company. The complainant has been a consumer of the firm for the past four years. He has been complaining to the company about its deficient service during this period. However, the company did not address his complaints. It also admitted this in an email sent to him. The company’s 2-G network functions well in the area where the complainant stays. But the 3-G and 4-G networks are poor in this area.

In spite of demanding the nodal officer’s number, the company staff did not provide it to him. Later, the complainant realised that the firm did not appoint the nodal officer as mandated by the TRAI. It agreed to pay a compensation of Rs 295 for three years. It also reduced the cost of Rs 399 plan to Rs 299.

However, the complainant did not receive the compensation and the reduced bill order. Then it increased the compensation to Rs 1,412. It changed the complainant’s plan from Rs 299 to Rs 399 without giving a prior intimation. Meanwhile, it conveyed to the complainant about the closure of his complaint.

Therefore, the complainant approached the consumer panel. The company representative appeared before the Commission after receiving a notice. The company did not file a say even after giving an opportunity. Hence, the Commission issued the order after hearing the complainant’s side.