DATE OF FILING                    :     01.04.2015.

DATE OF S/R                            :      20.05.2015.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     31.12.2015.

Anup Kumar Ghosh,

son of late D.R. Ghosh,

29/1/1 Panchanan Chatterjee Lane,

Howrah  711101.………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.

• Versus   -

1.         Manager ( How HUB ),

TATA DOCOMO

o/o TVH Howrah Hub 1082040047.

2.         Mr. Sanjeev Kumer Roy ( Sell REP ),

office same. …………..……………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

             Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

                               Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                     Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. The complainant, Sri Anup Kumar Ghosh, son of late D.R. Ghosh, 29/1/1, Panchana Chatterjee Lane, Howrah, has approached this  Forum under Section 12  of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended time to time )  has prayed for  direction to pay compensation Rs. 10,000/- as the complainant facing harassment and mental agony and to pay litigation charge Rs. 5,000/-.   

Matrix of the Case

2.  The complainant purchased a walktalky for an amount of  Rs. 1,849/- on 30.10.2010 ( Plan 199 ) from the HOB Hub at 5P, M. G. Road, Howrah Maidan, Howrah, 711001, h/w – 100048811 Huawei FP2255 FWP Docomo ( T/L) for post paid connection which is  be changed to prepaid after three months i.e., from 30.10.2010 to 30.01.2010 ( not from 30.10.2015 to 30.01.2016 as alleged by the complainant) with the plea that the walktalky was totally dead lock from February, 2015. All the documents were submitted before the o.ps. on 4.2.2015. This was confirmed by the o.ps. though SMS on 06.02.2015 that the walktalky was totally dead lock from Feb’15. As per directives the complainant has been directed by the o.ps. to attend either Ultandanga or Park Street along with a letter vide no. SRT2012440460. The complainant visited the Park Street Office but there was no solution, besides, an amount of Rs. 86/- for the month of Feb’15 for the telephone no. 8961036040 was sent.    

3. In this case the following issues are opened to decide :

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of o.p. ?
2. Whether there is any latches in taking action in right time on the part of o.p. i.e., Service Provider ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4. Both  the points are  taken up together for consideration. On plain reading of B.N.A. as well as  written version by the o.p. as well as complainant it is seen that the connection was activated in postpaid system on 30.10.2014 not on 30.10.2010 as alleged by the complainant. The number got disconnected as he did not make the first call within 90 days as a result the phone was without use for more than 90 days from activation as the reason having less than the Rs. 22/- balance which was well within the knowledge of the complainant and the non functioning of the prepaid connection from the month of Feb’15 was noticed by the petitioner. the complainant first approached at Howrah Office on 23.02.2015 but the complainant did not approach the right place which was advised by the o.p.

5. From the complaint it is crystal clear that the complainant failed to substantiate that he made the first call within 90 days or that he used the phone   within 90 days from the date of activation as well as failed to show his minimum balance is Rs. 20/- which is the directive of TRAI. If we enter into the  arena of the evidence act  the burden of proof lies on the complainant that has not been done. More so that the complainant is not at all aware about the date of purchase of walktalky. It can easily be concluded that the complainant filed the case before the Forum has not carefully gone through his grievance. Mere filing a case before the Forum for getting relief is not true spirit of a person that should be stopped. A person is really aggrieved by the act of service provider that should be fairly established with clean hands.

      After consideration of all aspects this Forum have taken the lenient view instead of passing any stringent order against the complainant that the o.p. has no intention to act in a manner which can be treated as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  

      In the result, the application fails.

     Court fee paid is correct.

      Hence,

                  O     R     D      E      R      E        D

           That the C. C. Case No. 130 of 2015 ( HDF 130 of 2015  )  be  and the same is dismissed on contest.

      No order as to costs.

      Urgent certified copy to be  given to the complainant, if applied for.  

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   A.K. Pathak  )                                              

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.