Orissa

Cuttak

CC/206/2022

Manas Kumar Malla - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD,Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Self

01 Aug 2023

ORDER

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

C.C. No.206/2022

 

Manas Kumar Malla,

S/O:Late Tushar Kanti Malla,

AT:Chandradeipur,P.O/P.S:Salipur,

Cuttack,PIN-754202.               ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.    The M.D,Reliance JIO Infocomm Ltd.,

Office-101,Saffron,Nr. Center Point,

Panchawati Rasta,Ambawadi,

                  Ahemedabad,Gujarat-380006.

 

2.    The M.D., Reliance JIO Infocomm Ltd.,                                                                                                                                                    1st floor,Wing A/B,Fortune Tower,                                                                                                                                                    Gangadhar Meher Marg,Chandrasekharpur,                                                                                                                                                  Bhubaneswar-751023,Odisha

 

3.    TRAI Mahanagar Bhawan,

(next to Zakir Hussain College),

Jawaharlal Nehru Marg(Old Minto Road),

NewDelhi-110002.                                        ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    18.10.2022

Date of Order:  01.08.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Self.

For the O.P no.1 & 2:                  Mr. B.K.Pradhan,Adv.& Associates.

For the O.P No.3:                         None.

         

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had tried to make online recharge for his JIO mobile phone bearing No.7008666767 for an amount of Rs.75/- on 5.10.2020.  The said amount though was debited but a “failure” report came to him at 1.02 p.m with reference ID no.BR000 5A519AC.  The complainant after knowing about the recharge to have been failed, had tried again to recharge his said mobile phone online for the same value and got a successful report at 1.12 p.m. that day having reference ID no.BR000 5A5483N.  Since because his first debited amount of Rs.75/- was not returned back to him by the O.Ps, he had repeatedly mailed them by sharing the reference ID and other particulars but could not get any positive report from any of them.  Ultimately, the complainant had to file this case claiming his recharge amount of Rs.75/- from the O.Ps together with a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- towards his mental agony and further a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

The complainant has filed copies of documents alongwith his complaint petition in order to establish his case.

2.         Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to contest this case, O.P no.3 has been set exparte vide order dated 14.12.2022.  However, O.Ps no.1 & 2 have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly wherein they have stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  They have also questioned the jurisdiction of this Commission through their written version.  According to them, the complainant had recharged his mobile phone on 5.10.2020 at 1.05 P.M and accordingly an auto-generated response was passed on to the complainant in transaction ID/Reference no.BR0005A519AC but the complainant being impatient had subsequently recharged his mobile phone again at 1.12 p.m. vide transaction I.D/Reference No.BR0005A5483N which was successful.  Though the first recharge of the complainant was also successful, due to server error, it took extra time to account in the recharge which was done by the complainant that day at 1.05 p.m.  Thus, according to the O.Ps no.1 & 2 on both the occasions, the complainant had recharged his mobile phone for a sum of Rs.75/- on each time which was duly credited to the account of the complainant through his mobile phone bearing no.7008666767.  It is further urged by the O.Ps no.1 & 2 that since because the mobile phone of the complainant was successfully recharged twice for a value of Rs.75/- on each occasion, and his mobile phone was activated accordingly, the claim of refund the first recharge amount of Rs.75/- is made by the complainant with an oblique motive only, which according to them, is to be dismissed with heavy cost.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, 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?

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

Issue no.ii.

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

After perusing the contents of the complaint petition, that of the written version of the O.Ps no.1 & 2, the written notes of submissions as available from either sides and also after perusing the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that the complainant with the intention to recharge his mobile phone had tried online to recharge his mobile phone bearing No.7008666767 for an amount of Rs.75/- on 5.10.2020 but he could receive a “failure” report that day at 1.02 p.m with reference ID no.BR000 5A519AC. After getting the said “failure” report and knowing that the recharge was unsuccessful, he had again made an attempt to recharge his mobile phone subsequently for the said amount of Rs.75/- and could get a successful report at 1.12 P.M with reference ID no.BR000 5A5483N.  In this context, it is the plea of the O.Ps no.1 & 2 that due to server error it took some time in order to acknowledge his first recharge as made by the complainant on 5.10.2020 for an amount of Rs.75/-.  But, the complainant was impatient and had recharged his mobile phone again that day for the same value.  According to them, on both the occasions the mobile phone of the complainant was recharged successfully twice that day i.e. on 5.10.2020 for Rs.75/- on each occasion.  Be that as it may, as per Annexure-1 which is copy of the report as made available and has been filed by the complainant in this case together with his complaint petition, it undoubtedly goes to show that the said attempt of recharging by the complainant was failed on the first attempt.  It is for the said reason the complainant had made a subsequent attempt and the subsequent recharge was found to be successful vide Annexure-2.  The complainant has categorically mentioned in his complaint petition that he had no intention to recharge his mobile phone twice on the same day for the same amount but only when he got the report of “failure” of the recharge vide Annexure-1, he had to make the subsequent/second attempt for recharging his mobile phone for the said amount.  The plea of the O.Ps no.1 & 2 that each time the mobile phone of the complainant was recharged successfully for a value of Rs.75/- does not hold good here in this case.  The plea of the error in the server also do not suffice since because it is the O.Ps no.1 & 2 who are to be held responsible for such server error and they cannot thrust their liability upon the complainant of this case.  As such, by providing a “failure” report to the complainant, they had made the complainant try for the second time in order to recharge his mobile phone; which amounts to a clear-cut deficiency in the service of O.Ps no.1 & 2 in this case.  This issue thus goes in favour of the complainant.

Issue no.i.

Ofcourse, the O.Ps no.1 & 2 had questioned the jurisdiction of this Commission by mentioning in their written version that the jurisdiction is restricted within Mumbai only.   But as per the provisions of the C.P.Act,2019, the complainant having his residence at Chandradeipur of Salipur in the district of Cuttack is undoubtedly within the jurisdiction of this Commission and by filing his case before this Commission it can never be said here that this Commission lacks jurisdiction in order to entertain the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.  Accordingly, this issue also goes in favour of the complainant.

Issue no.iii.

From the above discussions, it can well be concluded here in this case that the complainant is ofcourse entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him but to a reasonable extent.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps no.1 & 2 and exparte against O.P no.3 who are jointly and severally liable here in this case.   The O.Ps no.1 & 2 are therefore directed to reimburse the recharge amount of Rs.75/- to the complainant.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and further to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of his litigation.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 1^st day of   August,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                   President

                     

 

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                          Member