Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/34/2015

Mudipalli Lakshminarayana Reddy, S/o. M.Ramakrishna Reddy. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raghavendra Thota, Manager, Vodafone Stores - Opp.Party(s)

In person

30 Dec 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Filing Date:13.08.2015

Order Date: 30.12.2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

 

C.C.No.34/2015

 

Between

 

Mudipalli Lakshminarayana Reddy,

S/o. M. Ramakrishna Reddy,

Aged about 46 years, residing at D.No. 2-47,

Patha sanambatla, Chandragiri Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                            … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

1. Raghavendra Thota,

    Manager, Vodafone Stores, PMR Enclave,

    Opposite to Municipal Office,

    Tirupati.

 

2. The Manager,

    Vodafone South Ltd.,

    6^th Floor, Varun Towers,

   Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

 

3. Vodafone Store Office,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

Peninsula Corporate Park,

Ganapat Rao Kadam Marg,

Mumbai – 400 013.                                                              …Opposite parties.

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 16.12.2015 and upon perusing the complaint, Written arguments of the complainant and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.M. Lashminarayana Reddy the complainant and opposite parties are remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:-

                                                           ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

  This complaint is filed under Section-12 of the C.P. Act 1986, contending that there is a deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this forum to direct the opposite parties 1to3 (1).  to pay a sum of Rs.500/- which was collected towards SIM deposit charges and to pay Rs.100/- collected towards M-Paisa facility charges, Rs.500/- for conveyance charges, Rs. 5000/- for loss of earning because of visiting to the opposite parties office for restoring the mobile service with interest @ 24% per annum from date of purchase of SIM i.e. from 28.02.2015 till the date of realization. (2). direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages for  causing mental agony  and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs.

           2. The averments of the complaint in brief are:-  The complainant approached opposite party no.1 on 28.02.2015 for availing pre-paid connection to his cell phone. But the office personnel of the opposite party no.1 suggested him to take post-paid connection, hence he paid Rs.149/-  of post paid plan and also they collected Rs.500/- towards security deposit and also additionally they have collected Rs.100/- for  M-paisa facility. But they failed to give any receipt towards the collection of Rs. 100/- towards M-paisa facility.    

          3. The complainant further submits that the opposite party no.1 issued SIM bearing no. 899113014031397 with mobile no. 9581431116 and asked him to use after activation. He has been using the same till 07.03.201. On 07.03.2015 suddenly service connection of the said mobile was abruptly disconnected. Hence on 09.03.2015 he approached the opposite party no.1 for the activation of the service. But the opposite parties failed to do the same. The complainant further submits that even after repeated personal requests made by him to the opposite party no.1 to activate the said SIM, they failed to activate the same. Hence finally he issued a notice on 10.07.2015 to the opposite parties 1 and 3 to activate the said mobile or to replace amount of Rs.500/- which was collected by the opposite party towards security deposit. After receipt of the said notice also neither they complied the demands of the complainant nor gave any reply. Hence he filed the present complaint.

          4. The complainant further submits that his residence is located at 14 Km far away from the opposite party no.1 store, because of the visits to the opposite party no.1 for the activation of the SIM he lost the income and also additionally he has to incur the more amount towards petrol charges, because of inaction of the opposite parties in providing service to the complainant he suffered a lot of mental agony and also he lost income which is nothing but deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. Hence he approached the Forum for redressal.

         5. Notices were served to the opposite parties who remained exparte. The complainant filed chief affidavit and written arguments and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked now the points for consideration are:

            (i). Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties?If          

                 So, to what extent? 

           (ii)  To what  result?

           6. Point No.(i):-  The chief affidavit of the complainant re-iterated  the contents of the complaint. As already pointed out that the opposite parties remained exparte and did not challenge the contents of the chief affidavit. Now the contention of the complainant that he approached opposite parties and he paid Rs.500/- towards security deposit  under Ex.A1 and another Rs.100/- towards M-paisa service but the opposite parties fails to issue the receipt towards the collection of the M-paisa charges. As the complainant contended that after few days of the activation the service of SIM No. 899113014031397 in mobile no.9581431116 was abruptly disconnected and he approached opposite party no.1 for the restoration of the said connection. But the opposite parties failed to activate the SIM. After repeated   requests made by the complainant personally to the opposite party no.1 they failed to activate the SIM and also failed to refund the amount which was paid by him towards security deposit at the time of taking the post-paid connection.  

          7. The complainant further contended that he is residing far away i.e. 14Km from the opposite party no.1 shop because of the purpose of the restoration he visited the opposite party no.1 shop several times and finally on 23.06.2015 he visited the opposite party no.1 and requested to refund the same and he incurred more amount towards conveyance charges for visiting opposite party no.1shop several times and also he lost the income of Rs.5,000/-, because of his absence in work place. Finally on 10.07.2015 he issued notice to the opposite parties 1 and 3 to activate the SIM or to repay the amount which was paid by him to them i.e. under Ex.A2. The complainant has not availed the mobile service connection for pleasure and there is also no reason to hold that the complainant has unnecessarily complaining about the latches of the opposite party in rendering services to the complainant. If really that is so, the opposite party could have appeared and prove their bonafides. But in the present case the opposite party failed to appear and oppose the contentions of the complainant. Hence the deficiency of service is held to be proved. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

          8. The complainant further contended that he paid Rs.500/- towards the security deposit at the time of taking the SIM card under Ex. A1. The complainant contended that he paid another sum of Rs.100/- towards M-paisa charges, but the opposite parties failed to issue the receipt. As the opposite parties failed to appear and oppose the contentions of the complainant, hence it can be accepted. The next contention of the complainant that he incurred Rs.500/- towards conveyance charges and also he lost the income of Rs.5000/- due to his absence in the work place of him, because he  approached the opposite parties  several times for the activation of the SIM connection. But regarding that he failed to place any documentary evidence to prove the same. But it is appropriate to grant Rs.200/- for conveyance charges. The complainant is entitled for Rs.500/- which was collected by the opposite party towards security deposit with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the deposit i.e. on 28.02.2015 till the date of realization. And also the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by him. Accordingly this point is answered.

          9. Point No.(ii):-  In the result, complaint is  allowed in part  directing  the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- (rupees five hundred only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. on 28.02.2015 till the date of realization. The opposite parties further directed to pay a sum of Rs.200/-( rupees two hundred only) towards conveyances charges incurred by the complainant  and Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) towards compensation  for mental agony and deficiency of service and Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) towards  costs of the litigation. The opposite parties 1 to 3 further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which, the compensation amount Rs.1,000/-( rupees one thousand only) shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization.

              Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 30^th day of December, 2015.

         Sd/-                                                                                                           Sd/-

 Lady Member                                                                                                     President

 

 

                                          APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: Mudipalli Lakshminarayana Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.

 

-NIL-

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Invoice with Receipt for the purchase of SIM Card No.899113014031397, Cell No. 9581431116 for Rs. 500/-. Dt: 28.02.2015.
	Photo copy of Letter Dated: 02.07.2015 sent to the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 3 by R.P.A.D.
	Acknowledgement from Opposite Party No.1, Dt: 11.07.2015 and Opposite Party No.3, Dt: 14.07.2015.
	Return cover from the CUSTWALK IN (TIRUPATHI). Dt:10.07.2015.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

-NIL-

 

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                          President

                                                             // TRUE COPY //

 

// BY ORDER //

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                  Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati

 

Copies to:- 1. The Complainant.

                  2. The opposite parties.