Tripura

West Tripura

CC/22/2017

Arunabha Sarma. - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDEA Cellular Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.K.S.Sarma, Mr.D.Debnath.

29 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC-  22  of 2017

Sri Arunabha Sarma,
S/O- Sri Ashit Ch. Sarma,
Araliya, Jogendranagar,
P.S. West Agartala,
West Tripura.            .....…...Complainant.

                     VERSUS
 
      1. IDEA Cellular Ltd. Registered Office 
Suman Tower, Plot No.18, Sector 11,
Gandhinagar- 382011,
Gujrat, India.

      2. IDEA Cellular Ltd.,
F fort, 5th Floor, Kachri Basti Ulubari,
G.S. Road, Guwahati,
781007, Assam.

      3. Idea Cellular Store,
Advisor Chowmuhani,
Near Momos & More Restaurant,
P.S. West Agartala,
Agartala, West Tripura.        .......... Opposite parties.

                      __________PRESENT__________
 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Sri Kumar Sankar Sarma,
                          Sri Diptanu Debnath,
                          Advocates.                        
                      
    For the Opposite Party        : Sri Mridul Kanti Arya,
                          Sri Anirban Basak,
                            Advocates.
     
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   29.05.2017

J U D G M E N T
        This case was arises on the petition filed by Arunabha Sarma U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that on 11.01.17 he received an SMS from O.P. Idea Cellular Network. It was informed that he has got TT of Rs. 40/- on recharge of Rs.40/-. RC5- 1p/sec. So he called the customer care of O.P. and he paid Rs.5 from the balance to get the benefit of call @ 1p/sec for 30 days. He also received SMS from the Idea and it was informed that enjoy all call at 1p/sec. But after 3 days he did not get any service and again got SMS that he will get TT Rs.40/- for recharge of Rs.40. For every call he was charging 1 paise for every second. So he complained before the O.P., Idea network. But no suitable response was received. Service not provided. It was finally informed that Idea number is not eligible for offer as per communication base. Due to this deficiency of service petitioner suffered and claimed compensation amounting to Rs.2 lacs. 

2.        O.P. Idea Cellular appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that complainant is not a registered user of Idea Cellular and it was registered in the name of Kalpita Sutradhar(Sarma). He was not a consumer at all. Customer service replied to the complainant seeking apology for inconvenience. He was not  entitled to get the compensation as claimed. 
        
3.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination:
        (I) Whether the O.P. Idea Cellular given false promise to the petitioner about the service?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation as claimed?

4.        Petitioner produced the copy of Message, email sent by complainant, email sent by Idea, also produced the statement on affidavit of 2 witnesses Arunabha Sarma and Kalpita Sarma.
        
5.        O.P. on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of Bornita Deka, Assistant Manager, Service Delivery.

6.        On the basis of all these evidence we shall determine the points.
Findings and decision;
7.        From perusal of the case record it is found that petition was filed by Kalpita Sarma for addition of party. Accordingly she was added as a party. Petition was filed by Arunabha Sarma, her husband. The Sim Card was purchased by the petitioner in the name of his wife Kalpita Sarma. Being husband he represented his wife and filed this complaint and finally his wife also added as a party. Both of them are the service receiver which is promised to be given by the O.P. Idea Cellular Ltd. Being service receiver they are definitely consumer. 

8.        It is admitted fact that complainant sent Email to the customer service regarding inconvenience on 11.02.17. According to the O.P.W. Asstt. Manager the complainant is not eligible for the offer given by the company. We have gone through the message in the message it is written that he will get TT of Rs.40 on recharge of Rs.40, RC5 -1p/sec all calls for 30 days. Another message is written that 'Congratulations! Get all calls @ 1p/sec Chk 121 for validity. To enjoy Emergency TT for Rs.10 just dial *444*10# or 12112.' Another message on 11.01.17 it is written that 'Now enjoy all calls at 1p/sec.' Other sms messages also produced but offer was not working. The customer care told that after 24 hours the benefit will be given but actually benefit not given. The staffs of Idea told about the network problem. But actually service was not available. It was informed by mail on February 12, 2017 Promo benefit was not given under service request. Why the promo benefit not given not explained.

9.        O.P.W. Bornita Deka in her statement on affidavit stated that through email the company sought sincere apology for inconvenience and also promo benefit not given under service request which was closed. The complainant was asked to prefer appeal. Bornita Deka did not explain why the service request was closed after giving confirmation. Service request was received and after receiving the service request confirmation was given. Message was sent to enjoy all call @ 1p/sec. Thereafter service request was closed. This is improper, unfair trade practice. 

10.        Petitioner did not explain how much loss or damage was caused by this improper, unfair trade practice. It is true that O.P. failed to provide the service as promised. For that petitioner was harassed and had to file this case for getting redress. Petitioner claimed Rs.2 lacs as compensation. But claim is not justified as because loss suffered not explained. So for mental harassment we consider that petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1000/- for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by O.P. Petitioner is entitled to Rs.1000/- for cost of litigation Rs.2,000/-. Petitioner is not entitled to get any more. We have decided this above points accordingly. 

12.        In view of our above findings over the 2 points we direct the O.P. to pay Rs.4,000/- for their deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Payment is to be made within 2 months, if it is not paid will will carry interest @ 9% P.A.   

Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.