Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No.2255 of  2013

Dr. Laiq Ahmad Shamsi s/o Late Dr. Rafiq Ahmad,

R/o “Shafiq Manzil”, Moh. Imanbara, Faizabad

Road, Gonda 271001 U.P.                               …Appellant.

Idea Telecommunication Ltd., Fortuna Tower,

10, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow

Pin Code 22600 U.P. through its Appellate

Authority Manish Ranjan.                           …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Sarvesh Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.

None appeared for the respondent.

Date 19.05.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This Appeal has been filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 13.08.2013 passed by Ld. District Consumer Forum,  Gonda in Complaint Case no.04 of 2013, Dr. Laiq Ahmad Shamsi Vs. Idea Telecommunication Ltd.

The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the learned District Forum has failed to accept that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The impugned judgement has been illegally passed by the learned District Forum without considering the material facts in favour of the appellant. The impugned judgement is erroneous, illegal and is liable to be set aside. The learned District Forum failed to appreciate the obligations of the appellant towards the respondent. The learned Forum lost sight of the fact that

(2)

the complaint has been made with an evil design to harass the appellant and put burden on the appellant, which deals with the public money. The impugned judgement has been passed on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. The complainant had established his case. The learned Forum could not decipher the misconduct of the opposite party in entangling the process of law to achieve its vested interest. The learned Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant failed to provide the details about the questions which were asked to him.

The question was asked to the complainant on the mobile phone, so he could not provide the list of the question answer. The respondent company failed to give justifiable reason for alleged error. The respondent company has completely failed to provide the actual reason of not providing the winning prize. The impugned judgment/order of the learned District Forum is discriminatory, unfair and is not at all based on the evidences filed by the complainant. The learned Forum has passed the impugned judgment absolutely without application of mind, prejudicial to the lawful and legitimate interest of the appellant without any justifiable rhyme and reason. Wherefore it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may please to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Forum.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Sarvesh Tiwari. None appeared for the respondent. We have perused the pleadings, evidence and documents on record.

(3)

We have perused the impugned judgment. A complaint has been filed by the complainant stating that, that the opposite party floated a prize scheme in November – December 2012 and advertised that on the purchase of a new sim or mobile recharge of more than Rs.50/-, the consumer may play a challenge game and receive the prize. The complainant entered into the said game and purchased mobile recharge of Rs.111/– and answer the questions put forth by the opposite party. On 30 November 2012 the complainant received a message on his mobile that you have won a Alto car and for further information the idea agent will call you. The complainant was not given the said car. The complainant sent a notice the party. In reply the opposite party stated that due to manual error, wrong message has been transmitted. Thereafter the complainant filed a complaint for receiving this prize car. The learned Forum has said in his judgment that within an hour of the first message, second message has been sent that the first message has been transmitted due to manual error. Kindly ignore it. The notice of the complainant has been applied by the opposite party vide its letter dated 29 December 2012 where it has been specifically mentioned that due to manual error the impugned message has been sent to you but within an hour it has been rectified and a message has been transmitted to you to ignore the earlier message. The learned Forum, on the basis of it dismissed the complaint. We find no ground to interfere in the judgement of the learned District Forum. This appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost.

(4)

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed with cost. The judgement and orderjudgment and order dated 13.08.2013 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum,  Gonda in Complaint Case no.04 of 2013, Dr. Laiq Ahmad Shamsi Vs. Idea Telecommunication Ltd. is hereby confirmed.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.     

       (Sushil Kumar)              (Rajendra Singh)

             Member                               Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Sushil Kumar)                       (Rajendra Singh)

             Member                               Presiding Member

     Jafri, PA II

     Court 2