Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that he is a user of Mobile No.9437689743 which was purchased in the name of his younger brother. It is alleged inter alia that it was re-charged on payment of Rs. 330/- which was deducted from the savings account of the complainant at State Bank of India, Bargarh and was transferred to the BSNL bank account. It is further alleged that after re-charge, the Mobile set did not function and the customer care was informed. In spite of that, it did not work. Therefore, the complaint was filed.
4. The opposite party filed the written statement stating that the complainant is not a customer and the allegations are false. Further, they took the plea that due to technical difficulty in the on-line server, re-charge was not done immediately. It is also stated that the money which was deposited has already been credited to the account of the complainant. So, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum have passed the following order:-
“In view of this, the complaint petition is allowed and the opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.2000/- (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.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum ought not to have passed such impugned order where defect has been removed already by crediting the amount to his account. He also submitted that the O.P. has already expressed that due to technical error there was no re-charge of mobile cell. So he submits to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order and DFR.
Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act is as follows:-
“14. Finding of the District Forum (1) If, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following things namely;
- xxxx
- xxxx
- xxxx
- xxxx
- To remove the defects in goods or deficiencies in the services in question;
8. Besides such order, learned District Forum can also pass order awarding compensation in favour of the complainant.
9. In the instant case, the opposite party has admitted that they could not recharge because of some technical problem in the on-line server. When the removal of deficiency is due to technical problem, we consider that it is not a human problem. Apart from this, the amount has already been credited to the account of the complainant. Ofcourse, during the pendency of the complaint case, deficiency has been removed. Therefore, in such occasion, there is no necessity of imposing compensation by the learned District Forum. Hence, we set aside the impugned order.
10. The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
