<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 31.10.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 24th DECEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2340/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.S.N.Subramanya,(Senior Citizen)118, ‘Lakshmikrupa’5th Main Road,I.T.I Layout, Bensontown,Bangalore – 560 046.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Chief Executive Officer,Bharathi Mobile Ltd.,No.55 Divyasree Towers,Bannerghatta Main Road,Bangalore – 560029.Advocate – Sri.B.J.Mahesh<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.7,500/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant is having Air Tel connection to his mobile No.98458 71870. He is regular in making payment of the monthly bills without any default. Complainant being a senior citizen undergone heart surgery. He prefers to keep informing about his movement to his aged wife. For that purpose only he has taken the mobile. Unfortunately on 30.09.2008 from 7.30 a.m to 1.45 p.m complainant is not able to use his mobile phone due to the problem in the Air Tel department. His repeated requests and demands made to OP to set right and rectify the said defect immediately went in futile. To get the information he was forced to spend nearly Rs.1,200/- then made a claim to OP to reimburse it along with compensation. There was no response from the OP. Due to the carelessness and negligence of the OP he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP on 30.09.2008 complainant did make call at about 12.03 p.m and 12.10 p.m. So the allegations of the complainant that the said network was out of order right from 7.30 a.m to 1.45 p.m is false. As per the terms and conditions of the service clause 24.5 of the operating condition prescribes that if there is an interruption in the service for a period of more than 72 hours, ‘consumer’ is entitled for certain rebate. But here allegedly the interruption is hardly for 6 hours or so. So complainant is not entitled for rebate. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the license / agreement. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. The fact that complainant has availed the Air Tel connection from OP to his mobile No.98458 71870 is not at dispute. He is prompt in making payment of the monthly bills. Complainant is aged about 75 years a senior citizen and undergone the heart surgery. He has to keep in touch with his aged wife with regard to his health conditions every now and then whenever he comes out of house. But unfortunately on 30.09.2008 from 7.30 a.m to 1.45 p.m there was a network problem with the OP department, he is unable to contact his wife to intimate about his movements and health conditions. To have a contact with OP he has spent nearly Rs.1,200/-. Hence he sought for reimbursement of the said amount after the network was restored. But OP did not heed to his request. Hence he felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. Of course there is no proof that complainant has spent Rs.1,200/- to contact his wife by using certain public and other phones. The documents produced by the OP ‘call records’, details speaks to the fact that complainant did make a call at 12.03 p.m, 12.08 p.m and 12.10 p.m on the same day. Under the circumstances it can’t be said that there may be a fault with the network from 7.30 a.m to 1.45 p.m as contended by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. According to the OP, complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of license / agreement. If there is a proof of interruption of the service for more than 72 hours OP is liable to give rebate to the ‘consumer’ and the users but here in this case the so called interruption is hardly about six hours or so. So this defence of the OP itself establishes that there was a network problem at least for six hours. Of course the question of rebate comes when the demand bill is issued. Here the complainant is claiming compensation with regard to the mental agony suffered by him due to the carelessness, negligence and deficiency in service and not for the rebate. So for this simple reason we don’t find substance in the defence set out by the OP.<br /> <br /> 9. Admittedly complainant is a heart patient, he is required to keep in touch with his family when ever he goes out of the house. As there was a failure in the network of the OP, he is unable to contact the family for more than 6 hours naturally it must have caused him some mental agony. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Of course the claim of compensation of Rs.7,500/- appears to be highly exorbitant.<br /> <br /> 10. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.500/-, litigation cost of Rs.250/-. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.500/- and litigation cost of Rs.250/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 24th day of December 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />