<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 24th JANUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2595/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Dr.K.Mahadev,S/o Late.Kenchegowda,Age about 57 years,R/a 421, 18th Main, Jayanagar, 4th Block,Bangalore – 560 041.Advocate – Sri.M.NageshV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s.Saroj CommunicationsTIN No.29160364450,Rept by Proprietor,Authorized Representative of Airtel,A-4, 22nd Cross, Jayanagar, 3rd Block,Bangalore – 11. Its branch office situated atNo.55, Divyashree Towers,Bannerghatta Road,Bangalore – 76.2. M/s.Bharathi Airtel Limited.,Reg., Office H-5/12, Qutab Ambience,Mehrauli Road,New Delhi – 110 030.3. M/s. Bharathi Airtel Limited,Reg., Branch Office No.55,Divyashree Tower,Bannerghatta Road,Bangalore – 29.Advocate – Sri.B.J.Mahesh<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation and damages of Rs.2,50,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant’s daughter presented him a mobile which was purchased from OP.1 for Rs.31,000/- on 21.10.2008. At the time of sale of the said mobile OP.1 promised to give a sim card in a Super Value Plan for Rs.750/- and collected the said amount. Though OP promised that it will activate it within four hours. It was not done. OP wanted the residential address of the owner of the said mobile. As the complainant is residing at Mysore he gave the residential proof pertaining to his daughter Dr.Malathi Anilkumar a resident of Banglore. Even after the lapse of 24 hours or so his mobile No.9632221078 was not activated. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to provide the Internet facility to his I-Phone went in vain. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. OP even after the lapse of 30 days failed to extend their service as promised. Under such circumstances complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the said mobile belongs to Dr.Malathi. Actually speaking there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP. Hence complainant can’t allege the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As promised OP provided all the facilities and benefits within 24 hours Dr.Malathi availed the said connection and her mobile was activated. At no point of time OP promised to provide the free Internet connection. Internet connection will be given only on the request from the subscriber but no such request is made. The other allegations of the complainant are false and baseless. Complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. It is the contention of the complainant that on his birthday out of love and affection his daughter Dr.Malathi Anilkumar purchased a mobile handset from OP.1 on 21.10.2008 at a total cost of Rs.31,000/- and presented it. OP.1 issued the receipt / tax invoice. Copy of the tax invoice which stood in the name of the complainant is produced. According to the complainant as he is a resident of Mysore OP wanted Bangalore address to activate his cell phone. That is why her daughter Dr.Malathi Anilkumar gave her Bangalore address. It is further stated that on the purchase of the said phone OP give sim card in a ‘Super Value Plan’ for Rs.750/- and it has got one year free Internet service. OP collected Rs.750/- then gave the sim card and mobile number as 9632221078. Sim card stood in the name of complainant’s daughter.<br /> <br /> 7. It is further contended that though OP promised to activate the said mobile within four hours but it took its own sweet time. On repeated insistence and demands also it was not activated and Internet facility was not given even up to 21.11.2008. Complainant for no fault of his is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Customer Enrolment form copy is also produced. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. They go to the extent of saying that the said mobile stands in the name of Smt.Malathi. How that sim card and mobile stood in the name of Dr.Malathi is explained by the complainant. The defence of the OP.2 & 3 is against to the contents of the tax invoice. OP.1 has not filed the separate version so as to deny the allegations of the complainant nor filed the affidavit. <br /> <br /> 9. Under such circumstances we have no other go but to believe the say of the complainant with regard to the promises and services that is under taken by OP.1. Though it is contended by the OP.2 & 3 that the mobile is activated within 24 hours but it is not substantiated. When OP admits the fact of receipt of Rs.750/- with regard to Internet facility it is their bounden duty to provide the same. OP.2 & 3 have taken strange defence that in order to provide Internet facility one has to demand it and request for it and subscribe it. Here in this case complainant has not done the same. Hence they are not at fault.<br /> <br /> 10. We don’t find force in the said defence because OP.1 sold the said mobile collected Rs.750/- towards Internet facility and gave sim card in Super Value Plan. In our view that itself is a demand made by ‘consumer’. That request is not considered by OP for more than 30 days. Here we find deficiency in service. Due to the hostile attitude of the OP complainant must have naturally suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case justice will be met by directing the OP to restore the Internet connection as promised and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/-. With these reasons we answer point No.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP’s are directed to provide Internet facility as per the existing rules and regulations and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 24th day of January 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />