Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows.  The complainant has availed a call data pack known as ‘999’ from the opposite party.  As per this scheme 50 packs are allowed to the complainant by the opposite party in which 46 packs are for the use of data and 4 packs for making calls.  Apart from it the opposite party offered a net free connection of up to 6 GB.  According to the complainant as per the offer and assurance of the opposite party he has to pay an amount of Re. 999 for all these usages.  It is contended that on 05/08/2016 the opposite party issued a monthly bill for an amount of Rs. 19,890/- to the complainant and again on 05/09/2016, the opposite party issued another bill for an amount of Rs.27,109/- including the prior bill dated: 05/08/2016.  In pursuance of the above said bill complainant was forced to make a cash payment of Rs.9,000/- on 27/01/2017 and an amount of Rs.9,700/- on 08/02/2017 for the clearance of said bill.  It is again contended that as per the bill dated: 05/07/2016 to 04/08/2016 a GPRS (Volume usage) is allowed for 10555.244 but when the bill was issued a GPRS facility of 1055.244 was only allowed to the complainant.  The complainant approach the opposite party so many times to rectify the defect but the opposite parties failed to redress the grievances of the complainant.  Therefore, the act of the opposite parties are clearly comes under deficiency in service as defined in Consumer Protection Act 1986.  It is contended that the as per scheme the complainant has to remit only Rs. 3,398/- to the opposite party.  By mistake the opposite party realized an amount of Rs. 18,700/- from the complainant against the offer and scheme granted to the complainant by the opposite party.  It is further contended that the opposite party is liable to refund an amount of Rs. 15,302 (18,700 – 3,398) to the complainant.  Hence the complainant, to realize the excess payment from the opposite party, compensation, cost etc.etc.

3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite party for their appearance. Though the opposite parties received the summons of appearance before the Forum the opposite party failed to appear before the Forum on 29/05/2017 and again on 15/06/2017.  At last on 15/06/2017 this Forum declared exparte against the opposite party and proceed with the complainant. 

4. On the basis of the complaint and records before us we framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant proved any deficiency in service against the opposite party?
2. Regarding the relief and costs?

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who examined as PW1 and marked Ext. A1 to A4.  Ext. A1 is the details of monthly bill dated: 05/08/2016 and statement of account. Ext. A2 is the monthly bill dated:05/09/2016.  Ext. A3 is the cash receipt dated: 27/01/2017.  Ext. A4 is the copy of Account details.  When we peruse the chief examination of the complainant it can be seen that the complainant availed a plan of ‘999’ – call and data pack scheme from the opposite party and it also seen that the opposite party issued a bill for an amount of Rs. 19,890/- and Rs. 27,109/- on 05/08/2016 and 05/09/2016 respectively.  It is also deposed that the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 18,700/- to opposite party instead of the offered payment of Rs. 3,398/- as per the above scheme and offer.  He deposed that an amount of Rs. 15,302/- has to be refunded to PW1 and he also requested for a compensation, apart from cost of this proceedings from the opposite party.

6.  Point No.1&2:-   For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.  The evidence adduced by PW1 is          unchallengeable as far as this case is concerned since the opposite party herein is declared exparte.  When we evaluate the evidence adduced by the complainant and the records produced to substantiate PW1’s case it can be inferred that the opposite party issued a bill for an amount of Rs.19,890/- dated: 05/08/2016 as per Ext. A1 and it is also evident to see that as per Ext. A2 an amount of Rs. 27,109.70 dated: 05/09/2016 were also issued to the complainant PW1.  When we refer Ext.A3 we can see that PW1 paid an amount of Rs.9,000 on 27/01/2016 to opposite party.  If he refer Ext. A4 we can realized that on 08/02/2017 through a bank transfer the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.9,700/- to the opposite party.  There is no evidence to disbelieve the credibility of PW1 since opposite party has not been entered appearance or cross-examine PW1.  Therefore we have to rely the evidence adduced by PW1 in this case and find that the grievances of the complaint has not been redressed by the opposite party even though the complainant approached the opposite party several time for the redressal.  The act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service defines in Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Therefore, the opposite party is liable to the complainant and the complaint is also to be allowable.  Hence, Point No.1 & 2 are found in favour of the complainant.
7. In the result, we pass the following orders.

1)  The opposite party is here by directed to refund an amount      

of Rs. 15,302/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred and Two only) with an interest of 10% to the complainant from the date of this order onwards.

2)  A compensation of    Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only)     

     and a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) are also 

     allowed to the complainant from the opposite party with 10%  

     interest from the date of the receipt of this order onwards. 

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of June, 2017.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                          (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               :  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Vinu Pillai

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 : Details of monthly bill dated: 05/08/2016 and statement of account.

A2 : Monthly bill dated:05/09/2016. 

A3 : Cash receipt dated: 27/01/2017

A4 : Copy of Account details.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

                                                                                                (By Order)

Copy to :- 1) Vinu Pillai,

                    Plavilayil Puthenveedu,

                    Moonnalam, Adoor.P.O

                2) Idea Cellular,

                     Petes Communication,

                    GMM Building, Near RDO Office,

                    Adoor.

                3) The Stock File.