Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/288/2013

A.K.Ashok Babu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Aircel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

RTI Ratchagan

24 May 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   16.08.2013

                                                                        Date of Order :   24.05.2016.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.288/2013

TUESDAY THIS  24^TH  DAY OF MAY 2016

 

1. A.K. Ashok Babu,

S/o. A. Kumarasamy,

No.95, 17^th Street,

Kristina Nagar,

Mathuravayal,

Chennai 600 095.  

 

2. RTI. Ratchakan M.A. M.Ed.,

State Legal Right Protection Force,

43, Lala Saththiram Street,

Kuntrathur,

Chennai 600 069.                                          ..Complainants

 

                                         ..Vs..

 

1.  The Chief Executive Officer,

Aircel Centre – Spencers,

No.198/A 3^rd Phase, 769, Ground Floor,

Spencer Plaza, Annasalai,

Chennai 600 002.

 

2. Satheesh,

Employee of Aircel,

Aircel office,

Poonthamalli High Road,

Near Pachaiyappa College,

Chennai.

 

3.Saravanan,

Employee of Aircel,

Aircel office,

Poonthamalli High Road,

Near Pachaiyappa College,

Chennai.

 

4. Arun Kumar,

Employee of Aircel,

Aircel office,

Spencer Plaza,

Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.                                        ..Opposite parties   

 

 

For the Complainants                  :    Party in person       

For the opposite party-1              :    M/s. J. Ravikumar

For the opposite parties 2 to 4      :    Exparte.

 

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The  complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service to the 1^st complainant.

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-  

The complainants submit that the 1^st  complainant name as per Income tax Pan card is A.K.Ashokbabu and the 1^st complainant having obtained and using post paid sim cards of  the opposite party’s company (Aircel) bearing No.7299888992, 7299033996, 7299033998, 7299911978    from April 2012 and also having obtained and using  post paid sim card No.7299110944 from August 2012.  Among them the said sim card No.7299888992 was the parental card (CUG connection).  Among the said five sim cards the sim cards bearing No.7299911978, 7299110944, 7299995644 were cancelled on the instance of the 1^st complainant and refund of Rs.341/- was sent by cheque to the 1^st complainant by the opposite party in the month March 2013.   Whereas the said cheque was not encashed by the 1^st complainant since the said name was mentioned in the cheque as K.Ashokbabu.     At the time of getting the above said sim card connection 1^st complainant has given name as A.K.Ashokbabu whereas the opposite parties have sent monthly statement for the said sim card connection to the 1^st complainant mentioning as  Ashokbabu without initial and in some statement as K.Ashokbabu as mentioned.    Despite of request made by him through the opposite party’s staff, his name was not properly corrected in the records of opposite party, as such on the event of his cancellation of the sim card connections bearing No. 7299911978, 7299110944, 7299995644 the cheque for refund of Rs.341/- was sent by mentioning the name of the 1^st complainant as K.Ashokbabu instead of A.K.Ashokbabu as such the said cheque was not encashed by the 1^st complainant’s bank.  Even despite of his request the alternative cheque for the said amount in the proper name of the 1^st complainant was also not issued by the opposite parties which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties which caused  hardship and mental agony to the 1^st complainant.     As such the complainant has sought for claiming for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony.  Hence the complaint.  

     

Written Version of 1^st  opposite party is   in briefly as follows:

2.     The opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The 1^st opposite party  submit that  the 1^st complainant has not made any written complaint or request to the opposite party with regard to the allegation made in the complaint in respect of his wrong mentioning of name of the 1^st complainant in respect of his usual receipt of this monthly statement.  Further stated that in respect of the grievance made relating to the cheque issued to the 1^st complainant for refund of the amount and the event of closing / deactivating the three of the said sim card connections the complainant has not produced the alleged cheque to the opposite party in order to issue fresh cheque in his correct name despite of his / their request.    However 1^st complainant still operating / using other three connections even if the 1^st complainant come forward with the request the opposite party ready to adjust the said alleged cheque amount in respect of the using other connection the opposite party could not do so since the 1^st complainant has not approached the oppose party in proper manner.  Therefore the 1^st  complainant without approaching the opposite party for the above said  complaint mentioned grievance the complaint filed by him is not maintainable and complainant is not entitled for any relief sought in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite parties 2 to 4  did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the opposite parties 2 to 4 were set exparte on  24.1.2014.   

4.   Complainants have filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked on the side of the complainants.   Proof affidavit of  1^st Opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6  marked on the side of the 1^st  opposite party.   

5.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1.   Whether the opposite parties has committed  deficiency of

 service  as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.   Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for in

the complaint?  If so to what extent ?

 

6.  POINTS  1 and 2 :

Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party, proof affidavit filed by both sides, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 filed on the side of complainant  and the documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 filed on the side of the 1^st opposite party and also considered the both side arguments.    

7.     Considering the both side case, there is no dispute that the 1^st  complainant name as per Income tax Pan card  is A.K.Ashokbabu and the 1^st complainant having obtained and using post paid sim cards of  the opposite party’s company (Aircel) bearing No.7299888992, 7299033996, 7299033998, 7299911978    from April 2012 and also having obtained and using  post paid sim card No.7299110944 from August 2012.  Among them the said sim card No.7299888992 was the parental card (CUG connection).  Among the said five sim cards the sim cards bearing No.7299911978, 7299110944, 7299995644 were cancelled on the instance of the 1^st complainant and refund of Rs.341/- was sent by cheque to the 1^st complainant by the opposite party in the month March 2013.   Whereas the said cheque was not encashed by the 1^st complainant since the said name was mentioned in the cheque as K.Ashokbabu.   

8.     The 1^st complainant has raised grievance that at the time of getting the above said sim card connection 1^st complainant has given name as A.K.Ashokbabu whereas the opposite parties have sent monthly statement for the said sim card connection to the 1^st complainant mentioning as  Ashokbabu (without initial) and in some statement as K.Ashokbabu as mentioned Ex.A4 & Ex.A5.    The 1^st complainant contended that despite of request made by him through the opposite party’s staff, his name was not properly corrected in the records of opposite party, as such on the event of his cancellation of the sim card connections bearing No. 7299911978, 7299110944, 7299995644 the cheque for refund of Rs.341/- was sent by mentioning the name of the 1^st complainant as K.Ashokbabu instead of A.K.Ashokbabu as such the said cheque was not encashed by the 1^st complainant’s bank.  Even despite of his request the alternative cheque for the said amount in the proper name of the 1^st complainant was also not issued by the opposite party which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party which caused  hardship and mental agony to the 1^st complainant and for which the complainant claims compensation in this complaint against the opposite parties .     

9.     Whereas the opposite party have raised objection by saying that the 1^st complainant has not made any written complaint or request to the opposite party with regard to the allegation made in the complaint in respect of his wrong mentioning of name of the 1^st complainant in respect of his usual receipt of this monthly statement.  Further stated that in respect of the grievance made relating to the cheque issued to the 1^st complainant for refund of the amount and the event of closing / deactivating the three of the said sim card connections the complainant has not produced the alleged cheque to the opposite party in order to issue fresh cheque in his correct name despite of his / their request.    However 1^st complainant still operating / using other three connections even if the 1^st complainant come forward with the request the opposite party ready to adjust the said alleged cheque amount in respect of the using other connection the opposite party could not do so since the 1^st complainant has not approached the oppose party in proper manner.  Therefore the 1^st  complainant without approaching the opposite party for the above said the complaint mentioned grievance has filed complaint claiming Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation is not maintainable and contended that the complaint is to be dismissed.

 

10.    However considering the both side case, though the complainant has stated in the compliant that the name mentioned in the monthly statement sent by the opposite party for the sim card used by the complainant is not proper, there is no evidence on the side of the complainant that he has made written complaint or request to the opposite party with regard to the said grievance in respect of his name mentioned in the monthly statement received from him by the opposite party.   Further in respect of the connection of sim cards obtained by him in November 2012 the tariff was not proper as such the grievance made by the complainant to the opposite was said to have been earlier to filing of this complaint as mentioned in the written version of the opposite party.  Since this contention was not disputed by the complainant in his proof affidavit this forum is to compel to conclude that the grievance raised by the complainant in respect of the tariff  / charges not properly made for the new sim cards obtained by him in November 2012 by connecting the same with the parent sim card was already settled amicably before filing of this complaint among the parties.    The complainant has also not specifically raised any grievance or prayer in respect of the same in this complaint. 

11.    However it is true that the name of the complainant in the monthly statement relating to the Sim card No.7299888992, 7299110944, are not properly mentioned as evidenced by Ex.A4 and Ex.A5,  the opposite party filed monthly statement for the existing sim card Nos.7299033996,  7299033998, 7299888992,  which are continuously in use by the complainant are all stands in the correct name of 1^st complainant i.e. A.K.Ashokbabu.  Further the exchange of communications made between the 1^st complainant and the opposite party by way of email were also appears to be in relation with the dispute regarding charge made by the opposite party for the sent sim card only (which has been settled before filing of this petition)  not relating to the said grievance of  name of the 1^st complainant or relating to the alleged cheque mentioned in the complaint.    Therefore we are of the considered view that  for the particular grievance raised in the complaint regarding the correct name  of the 1^st complainant not maintained by the opposite party in respect of the sim card connection and cheque issued in not proper name (i.e. omitting A. initial in the name of the complainant) the complainant has not approached the opposite party before filing this compliant by way of written request is acceptable as contended by opposite party.   As contended by the opposite party there is no proof on the side of complainant that the complainant has approached the opposite party for requesting for issue fresh cheque in correct name by returning the alleged cheque to the opposite party.    However due to non maintenance of proper name of the complainant by the opposite party in respect of the sim card connection availed by the 1^st complainant has caused the opposite party to issue refund cheque Rs.341/- to the complainant without mentioning his proper initial.    To that extent the 1^st opposite party has committed deficiency of service.  Therefore we are of the considered view that considering the facts and circumstances of the case the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay the said refund of Rs.341/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from  08.3.2013 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as  just and reasonable compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation charges to the 1^st complainant.   Accordingly the points 1 & 2 are answered.  

        In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The 1^st opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.341/- (Rupees Three hundred and forty one only) with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 8.3.2013 to till the date of payment and also  to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as  compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as litigation charges to the 1^st complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.    No order against other opposite parties 2 to 4 since they are only the employees of the 1^st opposite party.  

        Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  24^th   day  of  May   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents :

Ex.A1-         -       - Copy of Ration card.

Ex.A2-         -       - Copy of Pan card

Ex.A3-         -       - Copy of Post paid bill.

Ex.A4-         -     - Copy of Post paid bill.

Ex.A5-  5.9.2012   - Copy of Post paid bill.

Ex.A6- 2.10.2012  - Copy of Post Paid bill.

Ex.A7- 20.9.2012  - Copy of email.

Ex.A8- 8.3.2013    - Copy of cheque.

Ex.A9-         -       - Copy of complaint by the complainant to the opposite party.

Opposite party’s side documents: - 

Ex.B1- 15.02.2014  - Copy of bill Cell No.7299033996

Ex.B2- 15.02.2014  - Copy of bill Cell No.7299033998

Ex.B3- 15.02.2014  - Copy of bill Cell No.7299888992

Ex.B4- 15.03.2014  - Copy of bill Cell No.7299033996

Ex.B5- 15.03.2014  - Copy of bill Cell No.7299033998

Ex.B6- 15.03.2014  - Copy of bill Cell No.7299888992

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.