Complainant Mohan Lal through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the amount of Rs.5060/- be awarded to him alongwith damages of Rs.5,00,000/- including Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that he planned a trip to Pakistan and during the stay in Pakistan he wanted to avail roaming facility and requested the opposite parties through opposite party no.3 for the same from his mobile telephone no.9915802129 and they charged Rs.5060/- from him vide collection receipt No.546 dated 24.2.2014. It was pleaded that opposite parties granted the roaming facility after depositing of Rs.5060/-by the complainant and sending a message on his mobile phone which reads as “Rs.5060/- SL158 dt. 24.2.2014” and with this message the said facility has been extended to the mobile phone of the complainant as he has paid Rs.5060/- to enjoy this facility and as such he is the consumer of the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that on 25.2.2014 complainant reached Pakistan and found that the said roaming facility was not available on his telephone and due to this he was not in a position to receive any call on his mobile phone nor was in a position to contact any body on his mobile phone and speak to anybody during his stay in Pakistan. Complainant also could not contact with his family members during his stay in Pakistan and they remained disturbed. It was also pleaded that it was informed to the opposite parties that complainant has been a Cabinet Minister in Punjab Govt. for two terms i.e. for about 10 years and prior to that he has been MLA from Pathankot constituency. It was also informed that complainant remained member of the Legislature Assembly Punjab, for three terms and he is a very senior member of Bhartiya Janta Party and he has always been holding important assignments, in the party, entrusted by the National Leadership of the party and still he is a very busy person in respect of his party matters and attend the various meetings at different places. It was pleaded that complainant served a legal notice dated 2.6.2014 to the opposite parties and demanded the refund of amount of Rs.5060/- alongwith damages of Rs.5,00,000/- but the opposite parties did not give any reply to the above said notice and in this way opposite parties committed the breach of contract and breach of obligation with the complainant and caused the great loss to the complainant by denying the roaming facility. It was also pleaded that complainant has rightly claimed the amount of Rs.5060/- alongwith damages of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to pay the same to the complainant, hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel but have failed to file any written reply and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 5.6.2015. Notice was also issued to opposite party no.3 but none had come present on its behalf and was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.3.2015.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.
- We have duly considered the pleadings of the complainant; heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
6. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the ex-parte arguments duly put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant, while adjudicating the present complaint. We observe that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 service providers did put up ‘appearance’ first (through counsel Sh.Pardeep Kumar, Advocate) but having failed to file the written statement (even after having availed of a full ‘five’ number of ‘request-procured’ opportunities) preferred to go ‘absent’ and thus were ordered (on 05.06.2015) to be proceeded against ‘ex-parte’. Opposite party no.3 was also proceeded against exparte vide our order dated 24.3.2015. This uncalled-for and unceremonious staging of absence (duly preceded by ‘regular’ counsel-appearances) coupled with the cogently produced plaintiff-evidence (on record) impels us but to judiciously exercise the inherently placed judicial discretion giving rise to the implied presumption that the responding OP have no defense to plead in their favor and the alleged contents of the complaint stay un-rebutted/admitted by implication. Further, we find that the OP service providers failed to make available the specifically charged for ‘international/overseas’ roaming facility on the complainant’s cell-phone on 25.02.2014 (onwards) during his visit to Pakistan and thus he had to face a lot of inconvenience and grave harassment amounting to mental torture. The matter entails greater volatility measured against the ‘high’ social & political status of the complainant who has been a State Minister and a three time Member of the Legislative State Assembly and so the ‘services’ as meted out to general public could not have been ‘better’. Thus, we are inclined to award exemplary damages (under the Act) to the OP service providers for the exhibited ‘deficiency in service’ as duly proved on the records of the complaint proceedings.
7. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled OP service providers to refund Rs.5060/- to the complainant besides to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the proven ‘deficiency in service’ within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders failing which the aggregate amount shall carry an interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of orders till actual payment.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
SEPT. 16, 2015 Member.
*YP*
