Managing Director,Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited V/S Siva Sankar Chaini - Consumer Court Case

Orissa

Cuttak

CC/133/2019

Siva Sankar Chaini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Self

19 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.133/2019

Siva Sankar Chaini,

S/O:Krushna Chandra Chaini,

Res. At Plot No.D/1063,CDA,Sector-6,

PO/PS:Markatnagar,Dist:Cuttack. ... Complainant.

Vrs.

Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited,

Represented by Managing Director,Sanjay Mashruwala,

At: Office-101,Saffron Nr. Centre Point,

Panchwati 5 Rasta,Ambawadi,Ahmedabad,Gujurat,Pin-380006..

Sanjay Mashruwala, Managing Director,

Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited,

Residing at Gandhigram Road,Juhu,Mumbai,

Maharastra,Pin-400049.

Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani,Director,

Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited,Residing at-39,Altamount Road,

Opp. Washington house,Mumbai,Maharastra-400026.

Manager,JIO Digital Life,

Situated at In front of Rotary Eye Hospital,

C.D.A,Sectgor-6,P.O/PS:Markat Nagar,

Dist:Cuttack,Pin-753014. ...Opp. Parties.

Present: Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

Date of filing: 25.10.2019

Date of Order: 19.01.2023

For the complainant: Self

For the O.P no.1,2 & 3: Mr. J.B.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.4 : None.

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had obtained prepaid connection in his mobile phone No.9040114611from the O.P no.4. The same was being recharged every month. The complainant had recharged his phone on 6.10.19 by a recharge voucher worth of Rs.399/-. As per the voucher, the O.Ps were to provide him high speed data of 1.5GB for each day and the validity period was for 84 days but the upload and download speed according to the complainant was less than 10 KBPS. The complainant had ventilated about the same to the Customer Executive of the OPs by dialling no.198 and the said Customer Executive of the O.Ps had admitted about the slow data speed which, according to him, was due to heavy customer utilisation which could not be rectified. In this connection, the complainant had sent a mail to

He has annexed several copies of documents together with his complaint petition as regards to the advertisement and e.mail chats with the O.Ps in this context.

2. Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P no.4 having not contested this case has been set exparte. However, O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly. According to them, the case of the complainant is not maintainable. The O.Ps through their written version have disagreed about the less amount of speed in the daily mobile data as alleged by the complainant on 16.10.19. They also admit about the mobile phone number of the complainant and he to be one prepaid subscriber with effect from 26.2.19. They also admit about the recharge to have been made by the complainant on 6.10.19 with a voucher worth of Rs.399/- wherein validity period was for 84 days and there was provision of 1.5GB high speed data per day alongwith other facilities like unlimited voice calling and complimentary subscription to Jio apps. As such, in toto, it is the contention of the O.Ps that there was no such alleged less amount in the high speed data of 1.5GB per day as alleged by the complainant and thus, the complaint petition as filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

Together with the written version, the O.Ps have annexed copies of several documents in order to prove their stand.

3. Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of O.Ps no.1,2 &3, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i. Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue No.iii.

Out of the three issues, Issue no.ii being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

Admittedly, here in this case the complainant had a prepaid mobile phone availing the same from the O.Ps which he was recharging on monthly basis . There is no dispute that he had recharged his mobile phone bearing no.9040114611 by a voucher of Rs.399/- on 6.10.19. There is also no dispute that as per the scheme of the said voucher, the O.Ps were to provide him 1.5GB data per day with a validity period for 84 days. The allegation of the complainant is that the data provided by the O.Ps to him was less than 10 KBPS and he had informed to the Customer Executive of the O.Ps and that the said Customer Executive had also admitted about the same but had expressed his inability of rectifying the said problem. Be that as it may, here in this case, the complainant alleges about the low-speed data provided to him by the O.Ps than that which was agreed upon. The averments of the complainant that the Customer Executive of the O.Ps had admitted about the less speed data when complained by the complainant has not been properly proved here in this case by the complainant himself. He has not examined the said Customer Executive of the O.Ps nor has produced any document to justify his statement to that effect. Moreso, that there was infact less data provided to him as alleged by the complainant, is not also amply proved here in this case. It is because, there is no such measuring data or any other equipment by virtue of which the complainant could know about the less GB data provided to him.The complainant has not been able to produce any evidence to that effect. Thus, the simple saying of the complainant that the Customer Executive of the O.Ps admitted about the slow data speed will not suffice in order to arrive at a conclusion here in this case that infact the O.Ps had violated their terms of service and had provided less data to the complainant. Accordingly this Commission finds no deficiency in service of the O.Ps nor can this Commission come to a conclusion that the O.Ps had practised unfair trade.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said that the case of the complainant is maintainable and he is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.