Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/169/2017

The Manager, Tata Docomo & anr - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahendran - Opp.Party(s)

Shivakumar & Suresh-Applt.,

11 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH               PRESIDENT

                          Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                   MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.169/2017

(Against order in CC.NO.108/2013 on the file of the DCDRC, Coimbatore)

 

      DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022    

 

 

1.       The Manager

          Tata Docomo, Branch Office

          Avinashi Road,  Near Lakshmi Mills Signal

          Coimbatore

 

2.       The Manager

          Tata Tele Service Pvt. Ltd.,

          283-284, 13^th Floor, Prince Info City 2

          Rajiv Gandhi Road,

Old Mahabalipuram Road,                                           M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh

Kandanchavadi,                                                            Counsel for

Chennai – 600 096                                                        Appellants / Opposite parties

 

                                                         Vs.

 

 

Mahendran

JVR Complex, No.25, III Floor                                  M/s. R. Sree Rangan

II Street, Gopalapuram                                                   Counsel for

Coimbatore – 18                                                 Respondent / Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.19.5.2015 in CC.No.108/2013.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.       This appeal has been filed by the appellants/ opposite parties as against the order dt.19.5.2015 in CC.No.108/2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore, in allowing the complaint.    

 

2.       For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per the rankings before the District Commission.

 

3.       The brief facts which are necessary to decide the appeal is as follows:

            The complainant is an advocate, using the TATA Photon + in the AC number 9244222461, but he was not comfortable with the post-paid scheme.  Hence he decided to change the same to pre-paid scheme.    Therefore, he made a request on 10.1.2013 to change the scheme.  The complainant had also received an SMS message from the opposite party, that the scheme was changed successfully.  But he found that the scheme was not changed as promised while the complainant tried to recharge the modem.  On enquiry with the opposite party, it was informed that there was an unbilled amount of Rs.360/- as on that date.  Therefore, he paid the amount immediately on 21.1.2013, for which a receipt was also issued.  Eventhen the opposite party did not care to change the scheme of the mobile.  Again on 19.2.2013, the complainant had received a bill from the opposite party for Rs.530/-.  For the repeated enquiries the opposite parties have sent two contradictory replies through mail, stating that the issue was resolved and later saying that their experts are working on it.    Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.90000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, Rs.10000/- towards compensation for mental agony and cost. 

 

4.       The appellants/opposite parties though received notice, remained absent before the District Commission.  Hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the complainant, directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards compensation for mental agony, alongwith cost of Rs.1000/-  Aggrieved over the same, the appellants/ opposite parties have filed an appeal before this commission in FA.No.371/2013.  In the said appeal, this commission had passed an order on 19.8.2014, by setting aside the order of the District Commission, and remanded the matter back to the District Commission for fresh consideration, with a specific direction to the appellants to appear before the District Commission on 19.9.2014, and on that date itself, to file the vakalat, version and proof affidavit and documents if any.

          Inspite of the specific direction, the appellants/ opposite parties have failed to appear before the District Commission.  Hence the District Commission, after giving ample time, had passed an order on 19.5.2015, stating as follows:

          “As per directions of State Commission Written Version and Proof Affidavit alongwith documents not filed.  Opposite party counsel present.  Opposite party called absent and set exparte.  Hence earlier order of this Forum stands good”. 

          Against the said order impugned dt.19.5.2015, this appeal is filed  praying to set aside the order, and remand the matter for fresh consideration. 

5.       Having considered the submissions made, and on perusal of the records, we are of the opinion that this commission had already passed an order on 19.8.2014, by remanding back the complaint for fresh consideration, on imposing a specific direction.  But the appellants/ opposite parties, had been silent all along for eight months and failed to appear before the District Commission, once again an order had been passed on 19.5.2015, after which the appellant/ opposite parties had rushed to this commission, requesting for the same prayer, which would show their utter negligence and lethargic attitude.  This callous attitude of the appellants/ opposite parties shows that their intention is only to drag on the proceedings and shuttle the complainant, and not to resolve the issue.  Moreover the original complaint is of the year 2013, and now almost 9 years have lapsed.  Therefore, there is no purpose in remanding the matter again.  Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

 

6.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order of the District Commission in CC.No.108/2013 dt.19.5.2015.  There is no order as to cost.

 

 

 

 

  R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                           R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT