Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/852

PRAMOD G - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDEA CELLULAR LTD - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

06 Apr 2018

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.852/15

JUDGMENT DATED :06/04/2018

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.75/14 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha order dated : 29.09.2015)

PRESENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN        : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                          : MEMBER

APPELLANT

Mr.Pramod.G, S/o.Gopalan, Orkathu House, Angadikkal South.P.O Chengannur, Alappuzha

 

(By Adv.Smt.Bindu George)

VS

RESPONDENTS

1. Idea Cellular Limited, Windsor, 5^th Floor, Off CST Road,

Near Vidya Nagari, Kalna, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 4000984

 

2. Idea Cellular Limited, 4^th Floor, Mercy Estate, Ravipuram,

Cochin – 686 015

 

3. Idea Cellular Limited, Savio Enterprises, M.C.Road,

Chengannur – 689 121

 

(By Adv.Sri.S.Syam Padman)

JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Complainant  in CC.No.75/14 of the CDRF, Alappuzha , in short, the District Forum, has filed the appeal against the Order of the District Forum dated 29.09.2015 not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded.

2.     The complainant has filed the complaint claiming compensation from the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service on their part. According to the complainant he was using the mobile phone having number 9947145327 of the opposite parties from 2008 onwards. In December 2013, the officials of the first opposite party instructed the complainant to produce his ID proof for verification. Since the connection was not in his name, the complainant was not able to produce ID proof and he contacted the third opposite party. They suggested submitting an application by the complainant for migration to post paid scheme with original address proof to retain the mobile phone number. It is alleged by the complainant that the third opposite party offered migration within two hours and they stated that the connection may be disconnected for two hours. The complainant agreed and decided to migrate the connection to pre paid scheme and he submitted necessary documents and complied with all formalities. The mobile connection was disconnected on 01.10.2014 and it was activated only on 09.01.2014. The complainant alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and it caused financial loss, mental agony and loss of reputation to him, who was conducting a workshop for the repair of cars. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees three lakhs) and cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) from the opposite parties. It is contended by the opposite parties that there was no deficiency of service on their part. Migration will take, 4,5 days normally. The connection can be activated only after the verification of the address proof produced by the complainant. 9 days is the period for positive verification and confirmation of the ID proof given by the complainant. The delay occurred because of the latches of the complainant.

3.     PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A9(a) were marked on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.     The District Forum, after considering the materials and hearing the counsels for both sides, arrived at the conclusion that there was delay of 5 days in activating the SIM which is proved by Ext.B1. The District Forum found that apart from the solitary testimony of the complainant, as PW1, he has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence for the alleged mental agony, pain and financial loss caused to him. It was found that the complainant is entitled for a normal compensation on account of the delay caused in activating the SIM and an amount of Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand) would be adequate and just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. The District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand) towards compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand) towards cost of the proceedings of the complainant. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum the complainant has filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation and cost ordered by the District forum.

5. We heard the counsels on both sides and perused the records. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the District forum was convinced that there was delay of five days on the part of the opposite parties in activating the SIM and that finding is not challenged by the opposite parties. She submitted that the District forum ought to have allowed the claim of the complainant for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs), and the compensation ordered by the district forum is too low. She submitted that the complainant was residing at Chengannoor and the Forum is situated at Alappuzha and there is 45 kms distance from the house of the complainant to the District forum. Appellant appeared through counsel. But the District forum allowed Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only as cost of the proceedings which is very low.

6.     We have perused the evidence adduced by the complainant. As observed by the District forum, in order to substantiate the alleged mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant due to the delay in activating the SIM on the part of the opposite parties, apart from the solitary testimony of the complainant, no oral or documentary was adduced. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case we consider that the amount of compensation of Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand) and cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) ordered by the District forum is too low and those have to be enhanced. We consider that an amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) will be adequate and just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) has to be allowed as the cost of the proceedings.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The Order passed by the District Forum directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards cost of the proceedings is modified as follows :-  Opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant / appellant. The Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the judgment.

     Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

 

JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN      : PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH              : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

V.V.JOSE         :MEMBER

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.852/15

JUDGMENT DATED :06/04/2018