ADDITIONAL PUNE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT PUNE
(BEFORE :- PRESIDENT :- Smt. Pranali Sawant )
MEMBER :- Smt. Sujata Patankar )
*********************************************************************
Complaint No. : APDF/353/2008
Date of filing :- 12/12/2006
Date of decision :- 02/12/ 2011
Mr. Ajay K. Sopory (Sahib), ..)
B/6, Western Court, B.T. Kawade Road, ..)
Ghorpadi, Pune – 411 001. ..)…COMPLAINANT
M/s. Reliance India Ltd., ..)
Mobile Web World, ..)
Dhole Patil Road, ..)
Pune – 411 001. ..)…OPPONENT
For Complainant : In person
For Opponent : Ex-parte
Per : Smt. Pranali Sawant, President
//JUDGMENT//
[1] Initially, the present complaint was filed before the Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum bearing complaint No. PDF/575/06. However as per the order of the Hon’ble State Commission, the present matter was transferred to Additional Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which was numbered as APDF/353/2008.
[2] The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant against M/s. Reliance India Ltd. for deficiency in service. The facts in brief which give rise to the present complaint are as follows :-
[3] Complainant Mr. Ajay Sopory was a resident of Mumbai. While residing in Mumbai, he had taken a reliance mobile connection. He was using that connection for a period of three years. Later on the Complainant shifted to Pune. The Complainant was using the reliance mobile in Pune by using Mumbai circle. However he was required to pay very high charges for the same. Hence in the month of July-2006, the Complainant requested the Opponent to shift his number to Pune circle. Accordingly, the Complainant filled up the necessary form and submitted it to the Opponent’s office alongwith necessary documents. He was given a new number of Pune circle. The Complainant paid Rs.2,200/- for new recharge for prepaid card. However within a fortnight in the month of August 2006, the Complainant’s phone was disconnected. The only words which were appearing on the screen of the handset were “Not registered yet”. It is the grievance of the Complainant that without giving proper intimation to the Complainant, the Opponent disconnected his phone. The Complainant personally visited the Opponent’s office to get his grievance redressed. However the Opponent’s representatives could not help the Complainant. Thereafter the Complainant wrote a letter to the Opponent’s Pune Office on 3/8/2006 mentioning all the details and requesting to refund the amount of Rs.1,900/- which was standing to the credit of prepaid card. However inspite of receipt of notice, the Opponent neither replied the notice nor refunded the amount as claimed. Due to such deficient service on behalf of the Opponent, the Complainant took new “idea” connection. It is the contention of the Complainant that due to the deficient service of the Opponent he was required to print 300 new visiting cards mentioning his new “idea” number. For this, he was required to incur the expenditure of Rs.500/-. The old handset of the Complainant also became useless. Hence the Complainant has demanded the refund of the price paid for the handset. The Complainant once again issued notice to the Opponent on 19/10/2006 demanding the above mentioned amounts. However the Opponent failed to take cognizance of this notice. Hence the Complainant has filed the present complaint requesting the Forum to direct the Opponent to refund balance of prepaid card, printing charges of visiting card, the cost of handset and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The Complainant has filed affidavit and two documents vide Exh.4 in support of his complaint.
[4] On receipt Forum’s notice, the Opponent appeared through an Advocate. However it failed to file its written version on returnable date. Hence “No say” order was passed against the Opponent.
[5] Thereafter, the Complainant filed 7 documents in support of his complaint and since the Opponent was absent, the matter was posted for judgment.
[6] On perusal of the documents filed by the Complainant, it can be seen that the Complainant was the consumer of the Opponent and he has purchased a handset worth Rs.4,150/-. The complaint of the Complainant made on oath in respect of the disconnection of his phone without any intimation is not denied by the Opponent. If there was any formality which was required to be completed by the Complainant, it was incumbent on the part of the Opponent to inform the same to the Complainant. Inspite of personal visit as well as a written letter by the Complainant, the Opponent did not bother to inform the Complainant the reason for disconnecting the phone. It also did not inform him the lacunae, if any, in the formalities for shifting the connection from Mumbai to Pune. The Opponent’s act of disconnecting the Complainants phone without intimation and valid reason proves that Opponent rendered deficient service to the Complainant. Hence we are inclined to allow the present complaint.
[7] The Complainant has claimed Rs.1,900/- as a credit of the prepaid card as well as Rs.500/- for printing charges of his new visiting cards. Since the Complainant was required to incur the expenses of printing the new visiting cards due to deficient service of the Opponent, we direct the Opponent to pay Rs.500/- as well as to refund the balance of prepaid card to the Complainant. The Complainant has also demanded the cost of his handset which is worth Rs.4,159/-. The cost of this handset can be ascertained from the documents filed by the Complainant vide Exh.14. The Complainant is not able to use his handset as the connection is not functional and the handset is designed to use only for the Opponent’s connection. Hence in our opinion, the Complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the handset. The Complainant had purchased this handset on 23/1/2004 whereas his phone was disconnected in August 2006. Taking into consideration the fact that the Complainant has used the handset for almost 32
months a depreciation of 10% per annum needs to be deducted from the cost of handset. Accordingly the Opponent is directed to pay Rs.4,159/- (-) (25% depreciation) = 3,119/-
to the Complainant. Taking into consideration the inconvenience which was caused to the Complainant as well as the expenses which he was required to incur for visiting Opponent’s office and sending the legal notice, in our opinion, the Complainant is also entitled to get compensation of Rs.7,000/- as well as Rs.3,000/- by way of cost of litigation. The Complainant is entitled to interest @9% on the amount of handset (Rs.3,119/-), printing charges of visiting cards (Rs.500/-) and the balance of prepaid card (Rs.1,900/-) from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 15/12/2006. Accordingly, we pass the following order :-
// ORDER //
(i) The complaint is allowed.
(ii) The Opponent is directed to pay Rs. 5,519/- alongwith interest @9% from 15/12/2006 till its realization.
(iii) The Opponent is directed to pay Rs.7,000/- by way
of compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation
to the Complainant.
(iv) The Opponent is directed to comply the abovementioned order within a period of (30) days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the Complainant would be entitled to file appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(v) Certified copies of this order be furnished to the
Complainant and the Opponents free of costs.
(Smt. Sujata Patankar) (Smt. Pranali Sawant)
MEMEBR PRESIDE NT
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PUNE.
Place : Pune
Date : 02/12/2011
