BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.156/2018

DATED ON THIS THE 19^th September 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri. Devakumar,M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986 against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and seeking a direction to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the negligence and cost of Rs.5,000/- with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant intending to avail overseas roaming facility, to communicate with her children, approached opposite party No.2, and on his advice, availed services of opposite party No.1 by paying Rs.2,999/-.  A SIM card valued at Rs.100/- with No.9972543717 was purchased.  The opposite party No.2 assured the complainant about activation of the SIM and usuage of the same outside India. Surprisingly, the mobile with the said number was not worked and even SMS sent also not forwarded at Doha and Atlanta, USA.  Aggrieved with the same, a complaint was lodged on 15.09.2017, through E-mail, with opposite party No.1.  Upon returning to India on 03.03.2018, through several E-mail sought for refund of Rs.2,999/-. On failure to comply, the complainant suffered mental agony, inconvenience.  Hence, the aggrieved filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     Notice was served on both opposite parties.  Opposite party No.1 appeared and filed version.  Opposite party No.2 remained absent, hence placed exparte.
4.     The opposite party No.1 admitted the suggestions made by opposite party No.2, regarding ten days overseas roaming facility at Rs.2,999/- and also about maintenance of minimum balance of Rs.99/- for each month to avail the international roaming services.  The complainant has been informed about the terms and conditions of international roaming services.  The problem was caused due to lack of understanding the information furnished by the opposite parties.  The SIM was not defective.  The complainant failed to adopt correct methodology to use the data services during their visit abroad.  Hence, the allegations are denied.  As good will gesture informed the complainant to adjust the amount towards main account.  But, the complainant rejected the offer.  Hence, the deficiency in service is denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5.     To establish the facts, the complainant and opposite party No.1 filed affidavit evidence and relied on several documents.  Written arguments filed by opposite party No.1 only.  Heard the oral submissions.  Perused the material on record and posted for orders.
6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service by the opposite parties, for not providing the services as promised despite of payment of Rs.2,999/- towards international roaming facility and purchase of a new SIM card and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2. What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order, for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant, on the advice of opposite party No.2, paid Rs.2,999/- and availed the international roaming facility of opposite party No.1. She also purchased a new SIM for a sum of Rs.100/-, the opposite party No.2 who assured that, the SIM card has been activated and ready for usuage.
9.    The attempts made by the complainant, to contact her children over her mobile phone using the opposite party No.1’s international roaming facility with her new SIM card, was failed.  The complainant being senior citizen suffered severe mental agony, inconvenience due to her inability to contact her children abroad.  On return back to India, quoting the inconvenience and not able to avail the services of opposite party No.1, demanded for refund of the amount paid by her with compensation.  Hence, the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
10. The opposite party No.1 contended that, on availing the international roaming facility, the opposite party No.2 had clearly explained the complainant about the minimum balance to be maintained, per month as per terms and conditions, apart from choosing the suitable options provided/available in the mobile phone.  But, the complainant without changing the options in the mobile phone, opted to utilise the services thereby she could not make use of the services provided properly.  Further, on receipt of the complaint through, E-mail the attempts made to clarify the allegations went in vain, as there was no other number available to contact the complainant.  However, contended that, since there is no provision for refund of prepaid amount to the customers, the amount would be adjusted towards complainant’s main account as balance, as a good will gesture, which was rejected by the complainant.  Hence, the allegation of deficiency in service is denied and prayed for dismissal of the complainant with costs.
11. On perusal of the averments in the pleadings, evidence and documents on record, the complainant attempted to avail the international roaming services of opposite party No.1, on her mobile phone when she visited Atlanta, USA to contact her children, but failed.  Complaint was lodged through E-mail and subsequently not utilised the services.  Admittedly, the complainant was not made use of the services of opposite party no.1, even though the SIM card was not defective and the same was active throughout the validity period.  However, it is true that, the complainant has not availed the services of opposite party No.1, during the validity period.  In view of the same, the opposite parties jointly and severally held liable to refund the amount paid (Rs.2,999/-) to the complainant along with compensation for the deficiency in service and damages for the mental agony and inconvenience.  Hence, the point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
12. Point No.2:- with the above observations, we proceed to pass the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties are jointly and severally hereby directed to refund Rs.2,999/-, and to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- for the deficiency in service and damages of Rs.2,000/- for the mental agony, inconvenience caused and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of litigation, to the complainant, within 30 days of this order.  Failing to comply, to pay penalty of Rs.50/- per day until compliance.    
3. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite parties to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
4. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 19^th September 2018)