This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 2-9-2008 in the presence of Sri. V.Narendra Swaroop, Advocate for Complainant, and of Sri.K.Gnana Prakasham, Advocate for opposite party No-1 and of I.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the opposite party No-2&3; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri. K.V.Kaladhar, Member )
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased the SMS Card worth Rs.100/- with a view to utilize the same for 5000 free SMS under recharge Pin No.1536 2123 4365 78, Voucher No.0386775047 valid up to 31-3-2007 which was packed February, 2006 and immediately after purchase of same with an intention to avail the facility he tried to fed the Recharge Pin No. in his cell No.93469 05322 on 2-03-2007. However, the recharge Pin number was not accepted and a recorded voice is getting repeated as “invalid code” . Then he contacted the opposite party No-2 in *333, where a person by name Srinivas, Executive, came in line at 8.00PM and others persons namely Kumar, Mahesh and Praveen Kumar came on line and advised the complainant to approach the opposite party No-2 for assistance and accordingly, he visited the opposite party No-2 at Khammam at about 8-20 PM on 22-3-2007 and requested to do justice. But opposite parties did not respond properly.
3. The complainant is a subscriber of opposite parties and using of mobile is very much essential for his day-to- day activities since he is a Columnist and also a writer and he need to get acquaintance with various people in his activities, for which , SMS is the idle way of communication. The complainant has also issued a legal notice on 28-3-2007 to opposite party No-2 &3. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.80,000/- towards damages for the inconvenience suffered by the complainant due to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. To pay damages of Rs.20,000/- caused to the complaint. To award costs of the complaint and to grant any other relief .
4. The complainant filed his affidavit with the following documents;
Ex A1: Original voucher No.0386775047 issued by opposite parties in favour of the complainant. Ex A2: legal notice issued to the opposite parties by the complainant advocate, dated 28-3-07. Ex A3: Postal Receipt No.4464 Ex A4: Courier receipt dated 2-4-07. Ex A5: Acknowledgement of opposite party No-3.
4. Opposite party No-1 filed the following counter:
The complainant had not purchased the S.M.S /Recharge card as alleged in the complaint. The complainant did not file any document to show that the said card was sold to him by this opposite party No.1. The opposite party No-1 is not a necessary party to these proceedings . Hence it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against this opposite party No-1.
5. Opposite party No-2 & 3 filed the following counter.
6. The services offered through SMS cards or recharge vouchers of talk time can be availed by following the instructions mentioned there under and the same would work perfectly without any flaw as per the terms and conditions. The complainant might have wrongly fiddled with the numbers leading to the non-acceptance of the said PIN by the system. While entering the PIN number if the subscriber fails to follow instructions properly or makes any mistakes in entering the above said number manually it would fail and the subscriber may not get the services provided there under. But in any case it could be fault of the subscriber but not the system.
7. That on receiving notice from the complainant, the customer care department of the opposite parties herein has tried their level best to reach the customer care and to resolve the problem. But the customer has not responded properly. As a final resort, the customer care department of the circle has sent a letter in reply to the notice of the complainant advising him to approach the executive concerned at Warangal. Two alternative phone numbers were also given in the said letter for necessary help over phone. However the said letter which was sent by RPAD, had come back with an endorsement “ Addressee not found, hence returned”.
8. The complainant has got this trivial issue to the Hon’ble Forum with an ulterior motive. The complainant claimed an exorbitant sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on fictional and unsubstantiated ground. The claim of the complainant is hypothetical, and the complainant has not convincingly explained as to how the said extent of alleged inconvenience was sustained by him.
9. Hence it is prayed that it is frivolous complaint and liable to be dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.
10. (i)Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of opposite parties ?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for?
ISSUE NO(i) (ii):
It is the contention of the complainant that he had purchased the SMS card worth Rs.100/- with a view to utilize the same for Rs.5,000/- free SMS . After purchase of the same he tried to feed the recharge pin numbers in his cell. The recharge PIN Number was not feeded that and record voice is getting as in valid pin. Immediately the complainant contact the opposite party No-2 in *333 where a person by name Srinivas, Executive, came in line at 8-00PM, and others persons namely Kumar, Mahesh and Praveen Kumar came on line and advised the complainant to approach the opposite party No-2 for assistance. Accordingly, he visited the opposite party No-2 at Khammam at about 8-20PM on 22-3-2007 and requested them to do justice. But the opposite party No-2 did not even care to answer. It clearly amount, to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
For which to substantiate the case the complainant filed original recharge voucher and also he field legal notice issued by the opposite parties.
For which the contention of opposite party No-2 &3 is that the service offered through SMS cards or recharge vouchers of talk time can be availed by following instructions mentioned there under and the same would work perfectly without any flaw as per the terms and conditions. The complainant might accidentally wrongly fiddled with the numbers leading to the non-acceptance of the said PIN by the system. It is also their contention that they had sent a letter to the complainant advising him to approach the executive concerned at Warangal, to resolve the issue if any. But the said letter which was sent by the opposite parties had comeback with an endorsement “Addressee not found, hence returned”.
The complainant approached opposite party No-2 in *333 where a person by name Srinivas, Executive, came in line at 8.00PM, and others persons namely Kumar, Mahesh and Praveen Kumar came on line and advised the complainant to approach the opposite party No-2 for assistance and the complainant approached the opposite party No-2 at Khammam at about 8-20PM on 22-3-2007 but the problem has not solved. Moreover, the opposite parties are stating that they had sent a letter to the complainant advising him to approach the executive concerned at Warangal, but the letter was returned with the endorsement “Addressee not found, hence returned”. But the opposite parties did not file that unserved letter that it is also their contention that this is a small issue with an ulterior motive the complainant approached this Forum demanding Rs.1,00,000/- as damages.
Admittedly the complainant had purchased Rs.100/- worth SMS card and he tried his level best to feed the said card. But the recharge PIN Number has not accepted and recorded voice is as invalid pin. In this regard he approached so many persons but the problem has not solved.
11. Hence, we are of the opinion that this is clearly deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant suffered inconvenience because of the negligent attitude of the opposite parties. However, the complainant did not explain or mention how he came to the conclusion that he sustained Rs.1,00,000/- towards inconvenience and damages.
12. Hence we are of the opinion that Rs.2,000/- awarded to the complainant would meet ends of justice. Hence, we direct the opposite parties No-2&3 to pay Rs.2,000/- towards damages, inconvenience and costs to the complainant in the interest of justice. This complaint is dismissed against the opposite party No-1. Accordingly this C.C. is allowed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 9th day of September, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
Complainant Opposite parties
Nil Nil
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
Complainant
Ex A1: Original voucher No.0386775047 issued by opposite parties in favour of the complainant.
Ex A2: legal notice issued to the opposite parties by the complainant advocate, dated 28-3-07.
Ex A3: Postal Receipt No.4464
Ex A4: Courier receipt dated 2-4-07.
Ex A5: Acknowledgement of opposite party No-3.
.
Opposite parties
Nil
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
