Delhi

New Delhi

CC/446/2014

Sh. Shailesh Malaviya - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Tata Tele Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/446/14                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Shailesh Malaviya,

R/o Teacher Flats, Lady Irwin College,

Sikandara Road, Delhi-110001

 

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

 

1. Tata Teleservices Ltd.,

10^th Floor, tower-1, Jeewan Bharti,

124, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

 

2. Tata Teleservices Ltd.,

2A, Old Ishwar Nagar,

Mathura Road, New Delhi-110065

 

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The complaint pertains to deficiency on the part of OP, for selling a defective data card for wifi services, which served no purpose, as internet could be connected yet the bills were raised by OP.

The facts are that complainant purchased a Tata Photon Max life data card on 24.02.14, from OP1, manufactured by OP2 for Rs.1,999/- vide invoice Annexure A. He was allotted account no. and phone no.9262312893. He waited for several days for activation of net connection till 11.03.14, when a complaint was made and site engineer of OP, on visit to his house told that connectivity is very poor, and he would inform the company. Later on he started getting the message that complaint was resolved. He again made a complainant on 28.03.14, without success but he in return got 3 bills of Rs.2,81/-, Rs.1,123/- and for Rs.3,00/- vide Annexure VIII. On 9t May, he was informed by Annexure IX, that he has to install repeater at a cost of Rs.13,000/- to avail the coverage vide Annexure IX. Frustrated he demanded refund of Rs.1,999/- which has led to this complaint.

OP in its reply has admitted the facts, but has relied on some technical conditions not shared with complainant earlier, to contend that it was not liable, if the connectivity was not present due to reasons beyond its control. It did not describe any reasons for the purpose and entire billing amount of Rs.1,703/- was waived and message of repeater was from Tata Communication and not by OP.

We have gone through the record annexed with complaint, reply of OP and heard submission. The facts are not in dispute. The OP also reversed the charges without explaining how the bill was raised without activation of net for 2 months and how complainant was misled of poor connectivity, though in reply it is stated that there was no such complaint in the area. Complainant never informs Tata Communication and how it sent message to complainant. OP is trying to shield it, without any basis and is obfuscating the matter. We hold OP guilty of deficiency in service and we award Rs.10,000/- to complainant for this deficiency inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on ……………….

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER