[Resolved]  Vodafone — Vodafone illegally refuses to take back device

Vodafone 3G Device No: [protected]

The above mentioned device [Sharing Dock R 101 with USB stick K-3770] was purchased from Vodafone Store, Park Street on 29 Jun 2012 to enjoy a ‘3G experience’. I was clearly informed that I should be able to get 6 Mbps at my central Kolkata residence. After several complaints a speed test by Vodafone network staff on 12 Jul established a speed of 1.8 to 2.5 Mbps [Copy of test report is with me]. This is more or less the same speed I get on my ‘humble’ BSNL broadband.

So far Vodafone (a) has claimed the above speed comes under ‘good coverage’ and therefore declined to accept the device back and return my money (b) has raised a bill of Rs 702.25 for period 7 Jul to 17 Jul when the usage was a nominal 0.23 GB and Vodafone had not yet established the 3 G experience as their device was being tested.



On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:49 PM, AppellateKOL <appellate.[protected]@vodafone.com> wrote:

Dear Ms. Ghosh,

We are in receipt of your e-mail dated 27/07/12 regarding your concerns for the Vodafone connection [protected].

Based on your email we confirm that no speed related issues has been identified at the said location , hence we regret our inability to refund the amount of the device since the device purchased is in working condition and has no issues.

The service registration number assigned for this correspondence is[protected].

For further help in future, kindly follow the below mentioned three tier grievance redressal mechanism for faster resolution.

Happy to help,

Beauty Adhikary

Vodafone Care

In this particular case Vodafone has sold a service comprising a device and quality of 3G service. The test results carried out by its own Network team show the service to be deficient (1.8 to 2.5 Mbps). It cannot get away by saying that the device is in good working condition.

Here is an extract from a consumer magazine that explains why:

“In 2001 a letter issued by the then Union Minister for Consumer Affairs, Shanta Kumar, to all state governments clearly stated that the footnote stating “Goods once sold will not be taken back” is in contravention of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, as the law provides for redressal of consumer complaints. The aggrieved consumer can get the item replaced, repaired or even get full refund, under the law. The letter had unequivocally criticized the practice of traders and shopkeepers shrugging ay accountability towards the goods sold by them. The letter pointed out that the seller in countries like UK and the US gives an undertaking to the consumer that if the latter is not satisfied with the item, it could be returned within one month for replacement or refund.” Runjhun; Consumer Tadka