Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/10

Yogesh Khanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Singh Adv.

08 Dec 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 10 dated 02.01.2018.                                               

Date of decision: 09.12.2020. 

Yogesh Khanna aged 43 years son of Shri Ravinder Singh resident of 114-J, Street No.1A, Mayur Vihar, Opposite MCL Fire Station, Hambran Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.Idea Cellular Limited, 10^th Floor, The Birla Centurion, Plot No.794, B Wing, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-4, Maharashtra-India.

2. Idea Cellular Limited, through its CEO-cum-Managing Director, 10^th Floor, The Birla Centurion, Plot No.794, B Wing, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-4 Maharashtra-India.

3. Idea Cellular Limited, through its Head Circle-cum-The Chief Operation Officer-Punjab, Phase-7, Industrial Area, Sector-73, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab.

4. Idea Cellular Limited, through its Manager/Incharge, O/o Idea Cellular Limited, Opposite State Bank of India (Treasury Branch), Dr.Sham Singh Road, Civil Lines, Ghumar Mandi Ludhiana i.e. Opposite Party, vide authorization Transcend Service PBTRAN215009, Collage Road Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties 

                   Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH.TEJINDER SINGH BHANGU, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.Amandeep Singh, Advocate.

For OP1 to OP3             :         Sh.Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate

For OP3                         :         Sh.H.S.Marshal, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the above named complainant on the allegations that he has been a customer of Ops since July 1999 as he has been using the mobile No.9814003482. It is further alleged that on 28.11.2017, the complainant went to the office of the OP4 for depositing the outstanding bill amount. The complainant opted to pay the amount of the bill using his debit card. After the complainant got his debit card swiped from the employee of OPs, he received a debit message in his mobile. However, the employee of OPs insisted that she had yet to swipe the card again as payment had not been received through the swipe machine. As a result, the complainant again handed over his debit card to the employee who swiped it again. As a result, the complainant again received a similar message on his mobile regarding the debit of amount for a second time. In this manner, the complainant was made to pay the outstanding amount of the bill in twice due to inefficiency on the part of the employee of OPs. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint with customer care department of OPs on 28.11.2017 through email which was duly acknowledged, but the grievance of the complainant was not redressed. On 05.12.2017, the complainant again submitted a complaint through email, but to no avail. The complainant received number of calls from the head office of OPs situated in Mohali and Ludhiana on 6.12.2017, but his grievance was not redressed. Hence this complaint whereby complainant has requested that the OPs be directed to pay the claim amount along with compensation of Rs.3 lac for having caused pain and agony and Rs.2 lac on account of damages and compensation and Rs.1 lac on account of deficiency in service.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by all the OPs. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OP1 to OP3, it has been pleaded that the complaint is vexatious, baseless, misconceived and further that the Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. On merits, it has been pleaded that the grievance of the complainant was reverted to and he was asked to contact his bank to get the reversal of the requisite money. It has also been pleaded that the amount in dispute which is said to have been paid vide debit card on 28.11.2017 has not been credited in the account of OPs due to which an amount of Rs.184.68P remained outstanding. The rest of allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of complaint has also been made.

3.                In the separate written statement filed on behalf of OP4, it has been pleaded that when the card of the complainant was swiped in the swipe machine, no receipt was generated by the machine. The complainant was asked to provide the account statement showing that the amount has been credited in the account of the OP4, but he did not provide his account statement. Therefore, the OP4 cannot said to be at fault. The OP4 has also made a prayer for dismissal of complaint.

4.                To prove his case, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C8.

5.                In rebuttal, the OP1 to OP3 tendered affidavit of Manoj Madan, DGM-Legal of OP3 as Ex. RA along with documents Annexure-OP1 to Annexure-OP3.

6.                Similarly, the OP4 tendered affidavit of Mukta Sharma, Prorprietor of OP4 as Ex. RA4.

7.                During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has referred to account statement Ex.C5 which clearly shows that an amount of Rs.400/- was debited in his account on 28.11.2017 which proves that the debit card was swiped twice successfully resulting in debit of Rs.200/- each. In this manner, the OPs have received Rs.200/- in excess from the complainant and thus, they are liable to refund of the same along with compensation and damages.

8.                 On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops has argued that the complainant is miserably failed to prove his case as he has not placed on record his complete bank account statement which could show that extra amount of Rs.200/- was credited back into the account of the complainant.

9.                We have weighed the contention raised by counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.

10.              This Commission is of the considered view that from the statement of account Ex.C5, it is evident that the debit card of the complainant swiped together for payment of Rs.200/- each, which means Rs.200/- was received in excess by the OPs. In order to prove that excess amount of Rs.200/- was not received by the OPs, they were required to place on record their own statement of account which could show that the said amount was not credited into their account. If the OPs had chosen to place on record the account statement, it could have been easily proved that excess amount of Rs.200/- was returned to the complainant and in that case there would have been an entry of debit of Rs.200/- in the account of the OPs. Since the OPs have failed to place on record their own account statement, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against them. In these circumstances, this Commission has no hesitation in holding that on 28.11.2017, the OPs received the excess amount of Rs.200/- from the complainant and they are liable to refund the same to the complainant.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint allowed in terms that the OPs will refund the amount of Rs.200/- to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

12.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                    (Tejinder Singh Bhangu)                         (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                                   President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated.09.12.2020.

Gurpreet Sharma.