Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/25/2016

M/s.R.Devaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.TATA DOCOMO - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Persion

30 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                                                          Date of Complaint  : 11.01.2016

                                                                 Date of Order         : 30.06.2016

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. 25 / 2016

THIS THURSDAY  30^TH  DAY OF JUNE 2016

Mr. R. Dhiraj,

No.21, Gill Nagar 2^nd Stree,

Choolaimedu,

Chennai – 94.                                        .. Complainant.

                                                         - Vs-

The Tata Docomo, No.1, TNAGI Building, Royapettah, Chennai – 14.                                         .. Opposite party.

 

For the complainant             :     Party in person.             

For the opposite party          :    Exparte

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

 

1.     Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite party  to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for poor service and also to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- for harassment and also for cost of the complaint.

2.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the opposite party were set exparte on  1.4.2016.

3.     Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4  filed by the complainant  and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant in person.  

4.     The complainant contended that he purchased a Postpaid sim card from the opposite party which was active from 20.6.2015 on payment of security deposit of Rs.300/-.   He used the sim card for two months and realized that no signal was available and found that poor service has been provided by the opposite party.  However he paid the bills for the month of June and July 2015.    He made a complaint against the poor service to the opposite party and received a detailed reply from the technical team of the opposite party through telephonic conversation that no tower is available for the above mentioned address and there is no possibility of getting the service in the near future.  The complainant further contended that though he resides at Choolaimedu and which is very near to Nelson Mannikam Road, which is one of the major roads in the Chennai City he could not get singed.   Hence he intimated  to cancel the service but the complainant never received any call for confirmation of the cancellation.  Whereas the opposite party demanded to pay the bills for the month of  August 2015 and September 2015 totaling of Rs.713/-.  He was also harassed by continuous calls and messages from the opposite party seeking reasons for cancellation and payment of bills without responding to his request.   He also  sent  email to the opposite party that he was willing to pay the said amount after deducting the security deposit of Rs.300/- and sought for details of demand of Rs.713/-, reasons for not adjusting the security deposit, actual usage of service by the complainant and also sent a legal notice but the opposite party failed to send any reply to his request or to his legal notice whereas sent a reply email stating that his sim card number was cancelled on 10.10.2015 as such demanded to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.713/- as well as refused to refund the security deposit of Rs.300/-, whereas they could provide discount of Rs.300/- if the complainant continue his services and the opposite party also sent messages to the complainant threatening that legal action has been taken against him and also demanded to make payment immediately.  Hence the complainant filed the above complaint to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for poor service and also to pay Rs.70,000/- for harassment and also for cost of the complaint.

5.     From the documents on records it reveals that it is not disputed by the opposite party that the complainant purchased Postpaid sim card on payment of Rs.300/- as security deposit.  Whereas the grievance of the complainant is that though there was no signal and poor service on the part of the opposite party he paid June and July 2015 month bills but informed to the opposite party about the non-availability of the signal and poor service for which the opposite party replied that there is no tower available in that area and there is no possibility of getting service in future.  Hence the complainant intimated to cancel the sim card number.   Despite of his intimation the opposite party demanded payment for the month of August 2015 and September 2015 totaling for a sum of Rs.713/- stating that his sim card was cancelled only on 10.10.2015.

6.     It is found from Ex.A1, i.e. email transaction and Ex.A3 legal notice the complainant sought from the opposite party to furnish the split up for the demand of Rs.713/-, list of calls made till 10.10.2015, reasons for not adjusting the deposit amount of Rs.300/-, duties corresponding to demand of rental charges.    But the opposite party did not sent any reply repudiating the request of the complainant. Moreover the email transactions reveals that immediately after two months the complainant had made complaint and had intimated the opposite party to cancel the sim card due to non-availability of signal and poor service of the opposite party.  The opposite party ought to have cancelled the sim card immediately on receiving intimation from the complainant, whereas the opposite party failed to do so and had cancelled the sim card only in October 2015 and demanding payment for August and September 2015 is not sustainable as per the contention of the complainant.  

7.     As such the submission of the complainant that due to non-availability of signal and poor service from the opposite party the complainant is not liable to pay the due for the month of August 2015 and September 2015 as demanded by the opposite party is acceptable.   Moreover failure on the part of the opposite party to provide the necessary details sought for by the complainant itself amounts to deficiency in service.   

8.     Admittedly the opposite party had cancelled the sim card as such it their duty to refund the security deposit amount of Rs.300/- whereas failure on the part of the opposite party to refund the security deposit also shows their unfair trade practice.  The reply email of the opposite party stating that the deposit amount will be adjusted as discount in future service is not sustainable since the sim card had already been disconnected by them.   Hence the opposite party is liable to refund the security deposit of Rs.300/-.  

9.     The further grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party had harassed him through threatening messages demanding payment is also evidenced through Ex.A2 i.e. the sample screen shorts of the messages.   As such the opposite party harassed the complainant and caused mental agony to  him is also acceptable.  Therefore the opposite party is also liable to compensate the complainant for causing mental agony. 

10.    Moreover the opposite party despite of receipt of notice from this forum, failed to appear before this forum in order to give any contra evidence to defend their case and  they remained exparte.

11.    As discussed above considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the complainant is not liable to pay any amount to the opposite party.   On the other hand the opposite party is liable to refund the security deposit of Rs.300/- towards the complaint mentioned postpaid Sim card of the complainant.   Further the opposite party is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- towards litigation charges to the complainant.  The compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant, however considering the facts and circumstances of the case he is entitled for just and reasonable compensation. 

        In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to refund the security deposit of Rs.300/-  (Rupees three hundred only) towards the postpaid  Sim card of the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only)  towards litigation charges to the complainant  within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above amounts (Rs.300/- + 5000/-) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment.   

                Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 30^h  day of  June   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                                        MEMBER-II                                           PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1-       -        - Copy of email correspondences.

Ex.A2-       -        - Copy of Sample screenshots of messages.

Ex.A3- 11.11.2015 - Copy of legal notice to opposite party

Ex.A4- 16.11.2015  - Copy of Acknowledgement of receipt of legal notice.

 

Opposite parties’ side documents:   -Nill- (Exparte)

 

MEMBER-I                                        MEMBER-II                                           PRESIDENT.