Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

cc/296/2013

C. Yogendhiran - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Tele thoughts - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. R. Sundaramurthy

04 Feb 2022

ORDER

                                                                          Date of Complaint Filed: 06.09.2013

                                                                                                                                      Date of Reservation     : 04.01.2022

                                                                                                                                       Date of Order              : 04.02.2022

                                                                     

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

Present:    Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.           : President

                  Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                  : Member

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.296/2013

FRIDAY, THE 4^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

C. Yogendhiran,

S/o C.R Chandrasekaran (late)

No.153, “Q”- block, M.M.D.A. Colony

Main Road, Arumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 106.                                                                                                                           .. Complainant                                              

..Versus..

 

1.M/s. Tele Thoughts,

   Represented by its Manager,

   3D, Bellevie Apartments,

   246/82, Rangarajapuram,

   Main road, Kodambakkam,

   Chennai – 600 024.

 

2.M/s. Tata Tele Services Limited,

   Represented by its Manager,

   No.283 & 284, 6^th and 13^th Floor,

   Prince Infocity – II,

   Rajiv Gandhi Salai,

   Kanchanchavadi,

   Chennai – 600 096.                                                                                                                                   .. Opposite parties

******

Counsel for the complainant           : M/s. R. Sundaramurthy

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite party   : Exparte

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite party   : M/s. Shivakumar and Suresh

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of  2^nd Opposite party and having treated the written arguments of complainant  as oral argument  we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A.,B.L.

1. The complainant has filed this complaint as against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.1300/- which was collected from the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service caused by the opposite party along with cost of the complaint.

2.     The complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and written argument.  On the side of the complainant, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked.   The 2^nd opposite party has submitted his version, proof affidavit and written Arguments and on the side of the 2^nd Opposite party documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked. The 1^st opposite party was set  Exparte.

3.The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant applied for purchase of Photen Data Card from the opposite parties on 29.06.2013. The cost for the data card is Rs.1,300/- after deducting the offer of Rs.150/- complainant has paid Rs.1150/- to the first opposite party representative. The first opposite party representative obtained two signatures in the second opposite parties application form and collected the complainants Bar Council of Tamil Nadu ID Card and driving licence for ID proof. They assured that the Data Card connection will be activate within 24 hours and gave his FOC Number 20022870 and his Cell Numbers are 8807488875 / 9042456086. The next day the second opposite party customer care made verification call and after verification they gave his TATA Photen Number 9282000649. But the activation has not been done within the said 24 hours as assured by the first opposite party. After severe trouble Data Card Connection was activated after five days from the date of purchase. The above data connection also was in activation only for ten days. Thereafter it has been deactivated without any prior intimation to the complainant. The complainant gave many complaints to reactivate the data card connection to the opposite party. But they have not reactivated the connection. The complainant has been utilising the services rendered by the opposite parties only for ten days. But for the non usage of data card the billing has been sent to the second opposite party to the complainant address which has been stated in the application form and daily keeping on calling, sending messages and also threatening to pay the bill amount raised for August and September months for the non usage of data card. Because of the deficiency in service complainant has lost his valuable clients and also it affected his legal profession. Hence this complaint is filed.

4.Written Version of second Opposite Party in Brief:

        It is true that the connection was sold by the first opposite party who is the partner of the second opposite party on 27.06.2013 to the complainant by receiving the supportive documents and matching them which was duly signed by the complainant himself in customer application form. The plan opted by the complainant is unlimited 3 GB- 650 by paying Rs.1150/- as initial payment. On 29.06.2013 general verification was done and the number got activated on 30.06.2013 and giving the Photen Number as 9282000649. It is submitted that the customer’s first login was done on 30.06.2013 (01:36:01 HH.MM.SS) as per the first bill generated No.1595369031. After general verification the opposite party has went residential verification, the address which has been given by the complainant in the application form. On 02.07.2013 at 5.30 p.m the second opposite party executive visited the complainant’s house and found the door was locked at that time. The executive tried to reach the complainant and his mobile was not reachable at that time.  Again the executive visited on 03.07.2013 at 4.20 p.m at that time also the door was locked and they are not able to contact the complainant and the alternative number given by him was also not reachable. Since the residential address was not verified, the connection has to be disconnected and the same was done by 16.07.2013. complainant utilising the services from 30.06.2013 to till 15.07.2013. At request by the complainant and for goodwill gesture, the opposite party reactivated the services from 26.07.2013. The bill was sent for the usage from 30.06.2013 to 15.07.2013 for an amount of Rs.471.18/-. As per the plan the rental has to be paid for the device and plan as well which in total the complainant has to pay the bill. Other allegations were denied by the opposite parties and state that there is no cause of action for the complainant and the alleged cause of action is created one and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.The Points for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complaint is entitled to get reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

3.To what relief, the complaint is entitled to?

6.Point No.1    

        Ex. B1 is the bill dated 01.08.2013 issued to the complainant. Bill period is 29.06.2013 to 29.07.2013. In page two of the bill brake up charges and the details were given. As per itemised bill it is found the phone was activated on 30.06.2013 and the bill amount is Rs.417/18. The complainant has not paid that amount. Ex.B2 is the bill dated 02.09.2013 for the period 30.07.2013 to 29.08.2013. monthly rental charges, taxes and the late payment mentioned in the Bill but  the above amount also not paid by the complainant. as such Ex.B3 is the bill dated 02.10.2013.

7.     On perusal of the Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 the data card was activated on 30.06.2013 itself. Therefore the activation was made only after five days is not correct. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has utilised the service for ten days. For that the complainant has to pay the bill amount according to the plan. complainant has not paid the bill amount. there is no evidence to prove that the complainant has requested to  close the date card which was availed by him. Till the date of closing the account or terminate the contract by giving  proper application form to the opposite party, it is the duty of the opposite parties to send the bills to the complainant and send messages to pay the bill amount. The above act will not amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

  Point Nos. 2 & 3

        We have discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs  as claimed in the complaint and as against the opposite parties.  Accordingly, Point Nos.2 & 3 are answered.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

      Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the 04^th  day of February  2022.

 

       T.VINODH KUMAR                                       R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                                      

              MEMBER                                                           PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the complainant:

Ex.A1	29.06.2013	Bill issued by the 1st Party
Ex.A2	29.06.2013	Application Form of the 2nd Party
Ex.A3	24.07.2013	Lawyer Notice Issued by the complainant
Ex.A4	-	Acknowledgement cards
Ex.A5	-	Bill amount send by the 2nd Party
Ex.A6	-	Communication Letter send by the 2nd Party
Ex.A7	15.07.2013	Offer email send by the 1st party
Ex.A8	02.09.2013	Disconnection mail issued by the complainant
Ex.A9	06.09.2013	Disconnection mail issued by the complainant

List of documents filed on the side of the 2^nd Opposite party:

Ex.B1	01.08.2013	Bill for the period of 29.06.2013 to 29.07.2013
Ex.B2	02.09.2013	Bill for the period of 30.07.2013 to 29.08.2013
Ex.A3	02.10.2013	Bill for the period of 30.08.2013 to 28.09.2013

 

 

       T.VINODH KUMAR                                       R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                                     

                MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT