JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant K. Srinivas against the Opposite U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the Opposite to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- with cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he is the subscriber of mobile phone bearing No. 9916147551 of the opposite. Thereafter he became the subscriber of Bonus Card No. 28 under which a sum of Rs. 28/- will be charged for giving the benefit of charging of Rs. 10 Paise per message. Later on he requested the opposite to deactivate the said scheme Bonus Card No. 28 on 21-01-09. But opposite did not de-activate the scheme but it started debiting an amount of Rs. 28/- towards renewal charges from the balance currency of Rs. 4.76 available in his account on 24-01-09 by showing the debit balance of Rs. 23.24/- Paise, he gave a representation for unauthorized debiting the amount and requested to deactivate the same. The opposite shows its negligence in considering his request and thereby he was not able to make use of out going calls from 24-01-09 to 29-01-09 and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service, as such he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it 3. The Opposite Party appeared in this case through its Advocate and admitted the subscription of the Bonus Card No. 28. He further admitted the request of the complainant for to deactivate the benefit of the said scheme, deactivating procedure was delayed due to server problems and opposite execute could not able to deactivate the above said scheme from the computer, however the difficulties in deactivation was explained to the complainant. All other allegations have been specifically denied as regards to debiting the amount of Rs. 28/- towards renewal charges and showing the balance of currency of Rs. 4.76/- Paise available in the account of the complainant and thereafter showing the negative balance of Rs. 23.24/- in his account are admitted there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite. This false complaint filed by the complainant and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds with compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000/-. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that he subscribed the scheme Bonus Card No. 28 from the opposite under which a sum of Rs. 28/- will be charged for giving benefit of charging of 10/- Paise per message and thereafter on 21-01-09 he requested the opposite to disconnect the said scheme to his mobile but opposite not deactivated the bonus card No. 28 scheme and recovered 4.76/- Paise in the available amount and shown negative balance of Rs. 23.24/- Paise and started sending message to that effect in-spite of his representation dt. 24-01-09 thereafter it restored the currency of Rs. 4.76/- to his account only on 29-01-09, after lapse of six days and thereafter he was deprived of excess to out going calls from 24-01-09 to 29-01-09 and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 are marked. Opposite filed affidavit-cross-examination to PW-1. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of D.G.M. Legal Head of opposite was filed he was noted as RW-1. No documents filed and marked, written arguments filed. 7 Introducing the scheme Bonus Card No. 28 by the opposite and giving benefits of 10 Paise per message by charging the customer of Rs. 28/- per month by the opposite and subscription of the said schedule by the complainant and thereafter on 21-01-09 he requested the opposite to deactivate him from the above said scheme and opposite not deactivated from 29-01-09 after lapse of six days and due to it he was not in a position to excess to his out going calls are all undisputed facts between the parties, deduction of amount of Rs. 28/- on 24-01-09 and refunding of it by opposite on 29-01-09 is also undisputed fact between the parties. In view of the undisputed facts now we have to see as to whether, the reasons stated by the opposite for to make such delay is a proper reason are as to whether it was due to its negligence. There are no acceptable evidence from the side of the opposite to accept that there was servers problem i.e, his office there is no affidavit-evidence of his executive who was operating computer as on that date to make us to believe that there was server problem on that day affidavit-evidence of him not filed, the opposite not made any sincere efforts to show that there was no fault of it to deactivate on 21-01-09 are immediately after that date, as such we found truth in the oral and documentary evidences Ex.P.-1 & Ex.P-2 to believe that this opposite has shown its negligence in deactivating the said scheme as on 21-01-09 are immediately thereafter. Hence the complainant proved the guilty of deficiency in its service by the opposite. 8. As regards to the reliefs are concerned, the complainant prayed for to grant a total compensation of Rs. 5,000/-, here we have gone through the entire case of complainant and defence taken by the opposite, we are of the view that granting an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards deficiency in service on the part of this opposite, will suffice to meet out the ends of justice, accordingly complainant is entitled to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,000/- from the opposite under this head. 9. As regards to the cost of the litigation is concerned, we have taken note of entire facts and circumstances of this case and the probable expenditure incurred by him in this litigation, we are of the view that granting a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,000/- will be proper and reasonable amount to be granted under this head, accordingly it is granted and we answered in Point No-1 & 2 accordingly POINT NO.3:- 10. In view of our finding on Point No-1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 2,000/- from the opposite. One month time is given to the opposite to make the payment above total sum to the complainant. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 10-09-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
