Orissa

Bargarh

CC/09/73

Debasis Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief General Manager, Telecom, BSNL - Opp.Party(s)

himself

15 Feb 2010

ORDER


OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT),AT:COURT PREMISES,PO/DIST:BARGARH,PIN:768028,ORISSA
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/73

Debasis Mishra
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Chief General Manager, Telecom, BSNL
SDE (CMTS),
General Manager Telecom Division (GMTD)
Sub-Divisional Officer(SDO)
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. MISS BHAGYALAXMI DORA 2. SHRI BINOD KUMAR PATI 3. SHRI GOURI SHANKAR PRADHAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Presented by Miss B. L. Dora, Member:- The Case of the Complainant is that, he had recharged Rs.330/-(Rupees three hundred thirty)only through Internet, using the site http://portal.bsnl.in on Dt.27/10/2009 for a prepaid Mobile No.9437689743 which is purchased in the name of his younger brother & used by him. The recharge status was successful with the transaction ID- TXE2710200900265, Receipt No. 6666644696. An amount of Rs.330/-(Rupees three hundred thirty)only was deducted immediately from the savings account the complainant bearing No. 11200093666 at State Bank of India, Bargarh and was transfered to the BSNL bank account No.30739746626 with narration ‘BSNL Payments’ vide Reference No.MSB191087113771G12458533. Then an amount of Rs.300/-(Rupees three hundred thirty)only was to be credited to the said prepaid Mobile but it was not happened. On complain, the Complainant was assured by the customer care for proper solution of it. On the next to other days also it was complained several times but has given the same assurance from Opposite Parties. After this, the Complainant has filed complain through internet as miscellaneous. complaint registration, BSNL customer care on Dt.29/10/2009. Then, on Dt.06/11/2009 some Mr. Behera, ITO, (mobile) contacted the complainant through cell No. 9437049555 an after inquiry asked to send a copy of the “on-line recharge printout” through fax to the No.06632410850 on Dt.06/11/2009 which was immediately send by the Complainant. After proper verification of the documents by the SDO (Mobile) and JTO (Mobile) Sri. Behera, JTO again contacted Complainant and requested to send a copy to Sri. S.R Mohaty, SDE (CMTS) BSNL, Bhubaneswar to find proper solution of this problem on Dt.07/11/2009 at 12.48pm. But on that day at 3.00pm the Opposite Parties said that though the transaction successful the amount might not deducted. So the Complainant was advised to send a copy the Bank transaction which was sent on Dt.07/11/2009. After that no steps has been taken by the BSNL to solve this problem and the said amount was not credited to the mobile and hence, this case. In order to prove his case the complainant has filed the following documents- 1.Xerox Copy of the Transaction Details made through Internet. 2. Xerox Copy of the Bank Account Transaction details. 3. Xerox Copy of the Complaint Status. 4. Xerox Fax Communication report and prays the Forum to the direct the opposite parties to recharge the said mobile for Rs.330/-(Rupees three hundred thirty)only with extended talk time as per rule from date of actual recharge, Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred)only as compensation for mental agony and harassment with cost of the case Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand)only. In response to this the Opposite Parties challenged the maintainability of the case as Complainant is not the customer of said mobile and denied all allegations made against them. The Opposite Parties further stated that the recharge was not done due to some technical difficulty in the on-line server. But however the Opposite Party No. 3(three) with the Opposite Party No. 1(one) credited Rs.300/-(Rupees three hundred)only to account the said Mobile on Dt.11/02/2009 to proper intimation to the Complainant. Prays the documents and heard from the counsel for the parties, it is obvious that the recharge amount has been credited to the said mobile but it was done after filing of the case. This long delay of about more than one month by the Opposite Parties cause mental agony to the Complainant which compelled him to file a case against them. In view of this, the complaint petition is allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only to the Complainant as compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation within thirty days hence, failing which the awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till the actual payment. The complaint allowed accordingly.




......................MISS BHAGYALAXMI DORA
......................SHRI BINOD KUMAR PATI
......................SHRI GOURI SHANKAR PRADHAN