IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 28th day of April, 2018
Filed on 01.01.2018
Present
1. Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim , BA,LLM (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.1/2018
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sibi Chacko M/s Realiance Communications Ltd.
Kamala Nivas, A&P Arcade, 2nd Floor, S.A Road
Iron Bridge P.O, Kadavanthara
Chandanakavu Kochi-682016
Alappuzha-688011 Rep.by its Manager.
(By Adv. A.Francis)
ORDER
SRI.E.M. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM (PRESIDENT)
This case based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
Complainant subscribed a post paid Mobile connection having No. 9037996583 by depositing Rs.580/-. Immediately after getting the said mobile connection it is started working irregular manner. At the time of electric power failure it was totally useless and it was not at all working properly. The net services were not working and without sufficient signals. Though the complainant contacted the customer care of the opposite party over phone, the call was unattended most of the time and occasionally though it was attended the complaint was neglected. Hence the complainants lodged complainant by Email to the opposite party on 11 times right from 29-03-2016 to 28-10-2017 but all those complaints were not even properly responded at all. The opposite party has also closed the office at Alappuzha town abruptly which caused unbearable hardship to the complaint. Hence the complainant was forced to port the connection with the opposite party to Airtel. Porting process was started on 17-10-2017 and it was done on 24-10-2017. However even after porting of the said mobile connection the opposite party is sending bills on the said number to the complainant and he received the last bill for the period 25-11-2017 to 05-11-2017. The abrupt stoppage of the office of the opposite party at Alappuzha Town malfunctioning mobile phone services and net services as stated above, issuing bills even after porting of mobile number to Airtel connections show the deficiency of services and gross services on the part of the opposite party. So the complainant contacted the opposite parties but there is no fruitful approach from them. All these days the complainant has been running pillar up to post for the redressal of grievances. The service rendered by the opposite party is faulty, imperfect, shortcomings and inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance, which is required to be maintained by and under the law for the time being in force and which the opposite party has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance and in relation to said service. The complainant suffered mental agony and physical hardship due to the said conduct of the opposite party. There is also gross negligence on the part of opposite parties. In the circumstances complaint prays to pass an order awarding compensation Rs.2,50,000/- with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the said sum along with the costs of the proceedings.
2. Inspite of the service of notice the opposite party remains absent. Hence the opposite party set expartie and recorded expartie evidence.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating averments formations in the complaint and got marked as Ext.A1 document. The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs as prayed for?
4. The complainant is obtained mobile connections by paying Rs.580/- with the opposite party. The unchanged averments in the affidavit filed by the complainant coupled with Ext.A1 document would prima facie establish that the complainant would come within the definition of consumer defined under section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act and the service rendered by the opposite party is faulty, imperfect, inadequate and hence there is deficiency in service and gross negligence on the part of the opposite party. It is also clear from the materials available on record that the complainant has suffered acute mental agony and physical hardship apart from the monitory loss due to the act of the opposite party. Hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation.
In view of the facts and circumstance of this case we are of the view that a compensation to the tune of Rs.7,500/- will be reasonable and sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms:-
The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant, failing which the complaint is allowed to realise Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from opposite party and its assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of April 2018.
Sd/-Sri.E.M.MuhammedIbrahim (President)
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Copy of the receipt, dtd on 12-10-2016
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
