Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   It is the case of the complainant that the complainant has got prepaid CDMA SIM from the OPs bearing Nos. 9337440833 and 9337366756. It is alleged by the complainant that the OPs have deducted Rs.30/- on 10.6.2012 from each accounts, Rs.20/- on 9.7.2012 for games service renewal, Rs.30/- on 16.7.2012 for skin care services, Rs.30/- on 29.7.2012 towards games for one month, Rs.30/- twice on 6.8.2017 for Bhakti service and Sangit service from each of accounts of SIM card respectively although the complainant has not opted for the same. So, it is alleged that Rs.300/- has been deducted illegally by the OPs for which complaint was filed.

4.      OPs took the plea in the written version that the complainant  has purchased those SIMs on payment of consideration but he has availed the services for which deduction has been made and there was no any deficiency of service on  their part.

5.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum have passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            The complaint is allowed on contest against oppose party No.1 with cost. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.300/- to the complainant along with a sum of Rs.100/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and of Rs.100/- towards cost of litigation. The above order shall be complied with by opposite party No.1 within a period of one month from the date of communication failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order against the OP 1 in accordance with law.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order towards compensation is very less amount, as such the impugned order requires modification, complainant has come in appeal.

7.   Considered the submission of learned counsel for    the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.     Para – 5 of the impugned order is quoted below for reaching the conclusion.

                   “xxx   xxx   xxx

            Taking into consideration the averments made in the complaint petition, written version and the submissions made by the counsel for the complainant, we are satisfied that there was deficiency in service on the part of the oppose parties in deducting Rs.300/- illegally from the SIM accounts of the complainant though complainant has not activated the value added service as mentioned above. Hence ordered that:”

9.      From the aforesaid para, it appears that the learned District Forum has not at all discussed any material to come to a conclusion. So it is a fit case to remand for fresh hearing and pass speaking order. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside by remanding the matter to the learned District Forum for denovo hearing after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence further if any and dispose of the same by passing speaking order within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 28.12.2021 to receive further instruction from it.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

          The copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.