Delhi

North East

CC/170/2011

SHRI L.G. DASS - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MTS REGIONAL OFFICE, SISTEMA SHYAM TELESERVICES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.170/11

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri L.G.Dass R/o 27, RPS, DDA Flats Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s  MTS Regional Office Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. A-194, Okhla Industrial Area, Ph-1 New Delhi-110020. (Through its Director/ Principal Officer).	Opposite Party

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	03.06.2011
	DATE OF DECISION      :	06.07.2017

 

 

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

ORDER

1. As per complaint he is user of MTS “MBlaze internet connection” vide No. 9136984792 for last several months. Towards recharge of the connection under the “unlimited downloading plan” valid for 30 days complainant is paying Rs. 999/- per month.

On 3.2.2011 Mr. Rajat Garg s/o complainant paid Rs. 999/- to M/s Kamal Telecom- OPs dealer/agent to recharge this connection for 9 month. Complainant not aware of it also paid Rs. 999/-, the same day to another dealer of OP M/s Sun Shine Communication, to get the connection recharged for that very month. When complainant came to know that he has paid twice for recharge the connection for same period he approached both dealers to get refund of Rs. 999/- but none of them returned it.

Assuming that after double payment the validity of recharge will also be doubled, when complainant checked he found it was valid only upto 5.3.2011. In reply dated 8.3.2011 to notice dated 17.2.2011, issued by complainant. OP admitting the double payment stated that the validity has been extended till 4.4.2011 which was false and complainant had to get the connection recharged on 8.3.2011 by paying again Rs. 999/-. In this manner OP is, not only engaged in an unfair trade practice but also deficient in service. Complainant has prayed for the direction to OP to refund Rs. 999/- with Rs. 10,000/- compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 5,500/- total being Rs. 16,499/-.     

2. OP by filing its reply in addition to challenging the jurisdiction of this forum to entertain the present complaint has also taken the plea of locus standi of the complainant stating that complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong by making double payment. Reply states that though OP was under no obligation to extend validity for another period of 30 days but on request of complainant it was so extended for another one month i.e. till 4.4.2011. Complainant never contacted the dealers of OP for refund. Once recharge is done neither the dealer nor OP is under any obligation to refund its amount as the recharge was recorded in the system of OP. OP is not engaged in any unfair trade practice and is not liable for any deficiency in service and is not liable to refund Rs. 999/-

3.        In rejoinder to reply complainant stated that extension of recharge for further 30 days till 7.4.2011 is fully wrong and false and reiterated all the contents of complaint.

4.        Both the parties filed their respective affidavit of evidence alongwith relevant documents.

5.        Heard and perused the record.

6.        Admittedly, there is no dispute about deposit of Rs. 999/- twice to the OP through its two different dealers/agents. Regarding third payment of Rs. 999/- by the complainant on 8.3.2011 for extending validity of connection upto 8.4.2011 there is no denial on behalf of OP. The only defence OP has taken is that though the refund of additional payment of   Rs. 999/- was not made but the validity of connection was extended for further 30 days i.e. 8.4.2011.  

7.        On the basis of aforesaid discussions we find that OP had not only received double payment for the recharge for the month February 2011 but also falsely asserted that the additional payment has been adjusted against recharge of another month and complainant had to pay for getting the connection recharged for the second month. As the recharge is done through internet connection the system would have itself not taken the second payment for the recharge of same month. OP despite confirmation of double payment deliberately avoided to refund money or to adjust the additional payment for recharge of another month. Thus there is default either in the system of OP or OP has deliberately taken the double payment. With respect to jurisdiction of this forum the same has already been rejected by this forum vide its order dated 17.3.2012 passed on separate application of OP challenging jurisdiction of this forum. Therefore, we hold OP guilty for both adopting unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service and direct it to refund to the complainant Rs. 999/- with interest @ 9% p.a. thereon from the date of its payment till final realization. In addition we also award a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- with litigation cost of  Rs. 1,500/-.    

8.      The order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of order of this Forum.

9.        Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

10.      File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 06.07.2017)                 

 

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member