Date of Filing:18.09.2007<br /> Date of Order: 18.03.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1935 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> M. Chandrashekaran,<br /> S/o Late S. Margabhandu, (Arranged by BCIL, Bg)<br /> No.586, 6th ‘G’ Cross, 17th ‘A’ Main Road,<br /> 6th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 095. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> AIRTEL,<br /> Near Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology,<br /> 9th Block, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 069. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by senor citizen.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant had a mobile phone of opposite party company since 2005 under a plan prepaid. Without his approval the opposite party is in the habit of taking it for granted to debit Rs.30/- as monthly rent and Rs.01/- as daily charges for “Hello Tunes and Tuney Talk”. This amounts to unfair trade practice. Though the amount involved is very small, the complainant stated that it is a prestige issue. Mr. Shivaraj promised that amount will be credited back and Tuney Talk will be deactivated. The complainant states that, the Tuney Talk was deactivated, but amount of Rs. 30/- was not credited back. Therefore, the complainant prayed cost of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards mental anguish.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed defense version. It is the defence of the opposite party that, they never activated any facility to the subscriber without the express consent of the subscriber and on 24/08/2007 “Hello Tune” facility was not activated. Opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> <br /> 4. The point for consideration is:-<br /> Whether there was any deficiency in service on <br /> the part of the opposite party? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. The complainant is a respected senior citizen a retired employee. He is having mobile phone of Airtel Company since 2005. All these facts are admitted. It is also admitted fact that the opposite party debited an amount of Rs. 30/- as monthly rent for Hello Tune and Tuney Talk. It is the case of the complainant that without his consent the Hello Tune was activated by the opposite party. Therefore, this amounts to unfair trade practice. The opposite party has not produced any record or documents to substantiate the defence that the facility was extended to the subscriber with his express consent. Therefore, in the absence of any proof it can safely be held that the opposite party had debited the amount towards Hello Tunes without the consent and permission of the complainant. This practice on the part of the opposite party is not fair. No doubt the amount involved in this case is very small amount. However, the Tuney Talk facility was deactivated from 24/08/2007, but an amount of Rs.30/- was not credited back to the account of the complainant. This amounts a clear-cut deficiency of service. The learned advocate for the opposite party during the course of argument submitted that, the opposite party company is ready to credit back the amount of Rs. 30/0 to the account of the complainant. His submission is appreciation. The opposite party could have done this act earlier. But the opposite party has come forward to credit the amount after filing complaint. Consumer Protection Act is a social legislation is enacted to safeguard the better interest of the consumers. The opposite party being a very big company shall not unnecessarily harass or give trouble to its customers. Complainant is a senior citizen, he should not be disturbed unnecessarily by providing Tuney Talk facility etc., without his consent. The opposite party should see that in future it should be very careful in unnecessarily giving nuisance to the subscribers. The complainant has sought Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental anguish. On the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case to grant such kind of compensation. However, a warning will do and serve the purpose. The opposite party shall be directed to re-credit Rs.30/- to the account of the complainant. Since the complainant was forced to approach the Forum for getting the relief is entitled for the cost of Rs.500/- tf the present proceeding from the opposite party. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to re-credit Rs.30/- to the account of the complainant and the opposite party further directed to pay costs of Rs.500/- to the complainant. The opposite party is directed to send the costs of Rs.500/- directly to the complainant address by way of D.D or cheque with intimation to this Forum. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br />