Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/132/2015

N.K.Sabeera Begam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.S.R.Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.A.Shaik Sulaiman

02 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  23.07.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  15.02.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY THE 15^th   DAY OF FEBRUAY 2018

 

C.C.NO.132/2015

 

 

Mrs.N.K.Sabeera Begam,

Wife of Azarudeen,

922, E.V.R.Periyar Road Lane,

Purasawalkam,

Chennai – 600 084.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.M/s. S.R.Telecom,

Rep by its Manager,

No.63, Spur Tank Road,                          (Dismissed on 23.06.2016 for non-

Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031.                     Prosecution)                                        

 

2.M/s. Sistema Shayam Tele Services Ltd.,

Rep by its Manager,

Ambiti  Park 2^nd Floor,

No.32 A & B, Industrial Estate,

Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 27.08.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. A.Shaik Sulaiman & K.Ayub Khan

Counsel for 1^st opposite Party                 : Dismissed on (23.06.2016)

 

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

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant claiming compensation for the mental agony suffered by him with the cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The second opposite party is a regional cum branch office carrying on business as a provider of Data Card/Mobile Cellular Service in the name of Sistema Shayam Tele Services Ltd. The 1^st opposite party is one of the retailers of the merchandise of the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant purchased an MTS WIFI Ultra Postpaid Data Card at the retail store of the 1^st opposite party on 26.08.2014. The account ID and MTS numbers assigned were 2807775399 and 8645931823 respectively. The mobile number of the complainant is 9790813159.

          2. Ever since the purchase of the MTS card, the complainant had not been able to avail the quality of service which she was assured of and she had been experiencing connection-problems quite often. Having been dissatisfied with the quality of service extended by the opposite parties, the complainant made a request in writing on 03.01.2015 to the 1^st opposite party.  She also made a call to the customer care of the 2^nd opposite party on 06.01.2015. She was told that de-activation would be done immediately on payment of Rs.1,595/- said to be the outstanding bill amount. She therefore paid the said amount immediately. After making the payment, the complainant contacted the customer care of the 2^nd opposite party once again and appraised about the payment made by her and reminded its assurances to de-activate the service. Promising to fulfil its commitments, the customer care of the 2^nd opposite party gave the complainant a reference number as 4560680.

          3. The complainant stops availing of the service of the opposite party from 03.01.2015. However the 2^nd opposite party had been without any justification raised bills as service was being availed by the complainant even after 06.01.2015. The 2^nd opposite party, despite having been informed of the payment made by the complainant had been raising bills illegally. The 2^nd opposite party started making demands on the basis of such illegal billing.

          4. The 2^nd opposite party caused legal notices dated 10.03.2015 to the complainant demanding payment of Rs.1,249/-. It was followed by another notice on 11.03.2015. The complainant advocate gave suitable reply to the 2^nd opposite party on 13.03.2015. The complainant states that the opposite parties after receipt of Rs.1,595/- and also as per the request of the complainant to stop connection from 03.01.2015 and thereafter raised the bill demanding the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,249/- by the complainant is an unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. Hence thereafter the complainant filed this complaint claiming compensation for the mental agony suffered by him with the cost of the complaint.

          5. The complaint against 1^st opposite party was already dismissed on for non-prosecution.

 

6. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          It is true that the complainant raised service request vide No.456080 on 06.01.2015 to deactivate the service of the opposite party but, it is false to state that the 2^nd opposite party informed that de-activation would be done immediately on payment of Rs.1,595/-. It is submitted that the complainant has called the opposite parties call center on 06.01.2015 cancel her connection because of the network issue, based on her request the opposite party has raised cancelation request with their CC team, but the opposite party’s retention team called the complainant and retained her by upgrading new PRL software in which she had also agreed and the service request No 4560680 was closed.

          7. It is false to state that the complainant stopped availing the service of the opposite party on and from 03.01.2015 and the sum of Rs.1,595/- said to be the outstanding bill amount was paid by the complainant as the precondition for the deactivation. As mentioned above she asked for cancellation and after that she agreed to continue with the services as convinced by their retention team and she is entitled to pay the bill of Rs.1,595/- for her usage in the month of December, 2014. It is pertinent to mention that she had raised request for de-activation and after that she convinced and agreed to continue and used the service till March. On 12.03.2015 the complainant has wrote a e-mail request for cancellation and the opposite party requested her to pay a sum of Rs.1,249/- which is the outstanding amount for permanent disconnection.

          8. It is true that the 2^nd opposite party caused legal notices to the complainant demanding the outstanding amount of Rs.1,249/-. It is submitted that after giving service request on 06.01.2015 the complainant have used the services of the opposite party and hence she is liable to make the payment till the month of March, 2015. But the complainant had not made the payment which is legally due to the opposite party for usage made by her. Since the complainant had not made the payment here the opposite party disconnected the service on 27.05.2015. It is further submitted that the complainant willfully defaulted in making payments towards the Data Card/mobile connection. The other averments made in the complaint are denied.  The complainant suppressing the fact filed this complaint and hence prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

9. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

10. POINT NO :1

          It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a data card from the 1^st opposite party on 26.08.2014 and the 2^nd opposite party is the Regional Cum Branch Office and the 1^st opposite party is the retailer of the 2^nd opposite party and for the purchase of the data Card. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1400/- and Ex.A1 receipt was issued by the 1^st opposite party.

          11. The complainant would contend that from the beginning she had been experienced poor quality of service and was not connecting quite often and dissatisfied with the service. The complainant made a writing in request on 03.01.2014 to the 1^st opposite party to de-activate her connection and however the opposite parties raised a bill for Rs.1595/- of outstanding amount and immediately on payment they will de-activate the connection and the complainant paid the said amount on 06.01.2015 and the opposite parties issued Ex.A2 receipt for the same and the complainant also called the customer care of the 2^nd opposite party on 06.01.2015 to de-activate the connection and the same was accepted by the 2^nd opposite party and however, after request of disconnection, the 2^nd opposite party   sent Ex.A3 notice dated 10.03.2015 demanding the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1249/- and demanding such amount followed by another letter Ex.A4 dated 11.03.2015  and for the same the complainant gave Ex.A5 reply dated 12.03.2015 suitably that she is not liable to pay such amount as she had not used the connection from 03.01.2015 and thereafter belatedly the 2^nd opposite party gave Ex.A6 reply dated 13.03.2015 that her account has been temporally de-activated on 02.03.2015 and therefore the 2^nd opposite party by demanding payment of Rs.1,249 under Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 proves that this 2^nd opposite party committed deficiency in service.

          12. The 2^nd opposite party would contend that the complainant had used the service of the opposite parties and hence she is liable to be pay till March 2015 and he has not committed deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint.

          13. The complainant contacted the customer care on 06.01.2015 to de-activate the data card provided by the opposite parties. According to the complainant she had not used the said connection from 03.01.2015. However, the opposite party sent Ex.A3, Ex.A4 notices demanding the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,249/- for the period 16.01.2015 to 15.02.2015.  When the complainant categorically state that he has not used the connection from 03.01.2015, the 2^nd opposite party has to specifically prove that what are the usages done by the complainant everyday from 03.01.2015 to till the date of raising of the bill. Absolutely there is no evidence filed by the complainant for the units used by the complainant and they have no right in raising the bill for a sum of Rs.1,249/- for the period 16.01.2015 to 15.02.2015 and both the bills are filed in Ex.B1 documents. The above two bills states only the amount and not the usage done by the complainant. Therefore, we accept the contention of the complainant that  he had used the data card from 03.01.2015 and the opposite parties without usage had raised the above said bills to be payable by the complainant establishes that the 2^nd opposite party had committed unfair trade practice and thereby committed deficiency in service and accordingly this point is answered.

14. POINT NO:2

          The 2^nd opposite party raised the bill and demanded the complainant to pay an amount is unfair trade practice and the same caused mental agony to the complainant and for the same, it would be appropriate to direct the 2^nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 1^st opposite party was already dismissed on 23.06.2016 as steps not taken.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The  2^nd Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen  thousand  only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 1^st opposite party was already dismissed on 23.06.2016 as steps not taken.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 15^th  day of February 2018.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 23.08.2014		Receipt for Rs.1,400/- issued by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A2 dated 06.01.2015		Receipt evidencing payment of Rs.1595.00
Ex.A3 dated 10.03.2015		Legal notice sent by the advocate of the 2nd opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A4 dated 11.03.2015		Legal notice sent by the advocates of the  2nd opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A5 dated 12.03.2015		Complainants letter to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A6 dated 13.03.2015		Reply of the 2nd opposite party to the letter of the complainant dated 12.03.2015
Ex.A7 dated 13.03.2015		Notice sent by the complainant’s advocate addressed to the advocates of the 2nd opposite party in reply to its notices dated 10.03.2015 and 11.03.2015
Ex.A8 dated 14.03.2015		Proof of delivery of the notice of the complainant’s advocate dated 13.03.2015 to the advocates of the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A9 dated 18.03.2015		Intimation as to delivery of the postal cover addressed to the 2nd opposite party given by the post office
Ex.A10 dated 14.03.2015		Legal notice sent by the advocates of the 2nd opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A11 dated 16.03.2015		Legal notice sent by the advocates of the 2nd opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A12 dated 16.03.2015		Complainant’s letter contradicting the claim of the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A13 dated 18.04.2015		Comprehensive notice sent on behalf of the complainant by her advocate to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A14 dated 20.04.2015		Postal acknowledgement evidencing receipt of the complainant’s notice by the 2nd opposite party

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 15.09.2014                      Bills of the complainant for the period of

                                                   26.08.2014 to 02.03.2015

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT