Air Tel India Customer Care, Sri Sri Raj Telecom Services
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of Filing:23.02.2006 Date of Order:03.10.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 480 OF 2006 Jangir Sharieff, Apartment 302, Suraj Apartments, No.8, D Cousta Square, III Cross, Cook Town Bangalore 560 084. Complainant V/S 1. The Manager, Airtel India Customer Care, No.55, Divya Shree Towers, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560 076. 2. Sri Sriraj Telecom Services, No.16, M.M. Road, Cox Town, Bangalore-560 005. Opposite Parties ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 claiming refund of Rs. 1,998/- and damages. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant received an SMS as to the offer of life time validity and easy charge at Rs. 999/- enjoy life time validity for Rs. 25/- talk time the complainant approached the second opposite party on 27.12.2005 at 9.00 a.m. in order to recharge his Nokia handset having Airtel No. 9845553705. The engineer of the second opposite party seems to recharge but he did not recharge the number of the complainant. He had recharged his own number which is 9845553075. He promised to refund Rs. 999/- within two weeks and asked the complainant to pay additional sum of Rs. 999/- which is almost of any use for it could not be activated. Complainant contacted helpline. They referred the complainant to the second opposite party. There was no proper response and not only untenable reply from the opposite party and then the complainant called the Nodal Officer who also turned blind eye. The complainant submits that at least 9845553705 had worked the money paid would have been useful and served its purpose for the 2nd charge. Both the charges are not working. Hence, the complaint. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties filed the version pleading that the claim of the complainant that he had gone to the office of the second opposite party on 27.12.2005 in order to get a recharge of his Airtel No. 9845555105 is absolutely false. Therefore, further contention that the engineer had summoned to recharge the telephone and did not recharge is also incorrect. The averment that the concern person had promised to refund Rs. 999/- within two weeks and pressurized the complainant to recharge for second time and made him to pay additional sum of Rs. 999/- are false. The averment that even thereafter mobile was not activated is false. The second opposite party is only entitled to provide the recharge card supplied by the first opposite party and nothing beyond that. The complainant has stated that his number is 9845555105 and he claims his no. as 9845553705 at another stretch. Claim of the complainant that he had visited the second opposite party is false and baseless. Second opposite party is providing the recharge cards and the sim cards supplied by the first opposite party and is also running an ice cream parlour. The bill produced by the complainant relates to ice cream parlour. There appears to be tampering in the bill as three numbers have been mentioned on the bill. Bill does not contain signature of the second opposite party. 3. This is the second round of litigation. The complaint was dismissed on 28.03.2007. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the complainant went in appeal before the Honble State Commission. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. Matter was remitted back to district forum to dispose off the matter afresh. After notice both the parties appeared before this forum and arguments are heard. 4. The learned advocate for the opposite party has fairly and rightly submitted that in order to maintain a harmonious and good relationship with the customers the opposite party may refund Rs. 999/- to the complainant. This gesture is appreciated. It is admitted case that the complainant is the customer of opposite party. The complainant has paid Rs. 999/- for recharging his mobile but the opposite parties did not recharge the mobile to the number given by the complainant. There was some confusion. The complainant had given mobile No. 9845553075 earlier. After finding that the said number is not correct he gave another No. 9845553705. Therefore, the mobile phone was not properly charged to the number given by the complainant. The complainant has produced only one receipt dated 27.12.2005. As per this receipt the amount paid by the complainant is Rs. 999/-. The arguments advanced by the learned advocate for complainant that the complainant has paid extra amount of Rs. 999/- cannot be accepted at all because admittedly, the complainant has not produced receipt to show that he has paid Rs. 999/- second time. The only receipt produced by the complainant is dated 27.12.2005 and as per that receipt Rs. 999/- amount has been paid. Therefore, the opposite party can be directed to pay Rs. 999/- to the complainant since recharging was not done to the mobile phone of the complainant. The good gesture shown by the opposite party in coming forward to refund Rs. 999/- to the complainant is appreciated. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 5. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 999/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of this order within 30 days the said amount carried interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payment. 6. The complainant is entitled for Rs. 500/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite parties. 7. The opposite parties are directed to send amount directly to the complainant by way of DD / Cheque with intimation to this forum. 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER Rhr
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
