Haryana

Sonipat

CC/272/2015

SURENDER KUMAR KAUSHIK - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM SAHAI TELECOM TATA DOCOMO STORE - Opp.Party(s)

SURENDER KUMAR KAUSHIK

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.272 of 2015

                                Instituted on:10.08.2015

                                Date of order:08.03.2016

 

Surender Kumar Kaushik  r/o Dipalpur, tehsil and Distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.  

Versus

 

1.Ram Sahai Telecom, Tata Docomo Store, Sector 14, Gandhi Chowk, near Andhra Bank, Sonepat.

2.Tata Docomo Care Centre, 15/2056, Jandi road, Mohanpura, Kachay Quarter, Sonepat.

3.MD of Tata Docomo Haryana Region, C-125, Industrial Area, Phase 8, Mohali, Chandigarh.\

                                                      …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte.

           Sh. Trilochan Mago, Adv. for respondents no.2 and 3.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he is having mobile no.09802454498 of Tata Docomo company.  The complainant made a request of recharge of internet 1 GB Data through special offer of Rs.147/- form his balance on 30.7.2015.  The request was accepted and data plan was activated and Rs.147/- were deducted from the balance of the complainant.  On 31.7.2015 the complainant restored his mobile by restoring factory data.  On 1.8.2015, the complainant tried to make a call but could not succeed due to zero balance.  The complainant made a complaint in this regard to the respondents, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.2 and 3 have appeared and filed their reply, whereas respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte.

          The respondents no.2 and 3 in their written statement has submitted that the complainant has recharged his number with special recharge of Rs.147/- on 14.5.2015 and not on 30.7.2015.  The said special recharge was valid only for 28 days from the date of recharge.   Till 1.8.2015, the complainant had already consumed 1218000 KB more than allocated data/available limit and above the permitted usage which lead to deduction of Rs.1218/- from the complainant’s account.  The complainant last recharged his connection with Rs.999/- data plan on 2.6.2015 for 2048 MB. However, he had consumed 122 MB data more than data limit provided where after charge at the rate of 10P/10KB was levied i.e. Rs.1218/- against 121800 KB extra used.  So, no wrong deductions have been made by the complainant has charged according to his usage only and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.2 and 3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          In the present case, the complainant has submitted that he has sent a request on 30.7.2015 for recharge of 1GB Data by deducting the amount of Rs.147/- from his balance.  As per the complainant, the amount of Rs.147/- was deducted, but the data was not recharged and due to this, the amount of Rs.1218/- were also wrongly deducted by the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 has argued his case vehemently, but the respondents no.2 and 3 have not produced any record to prove that the complainant has not recharged his mobile for 1 GB data for Rs.147/-.  Thus, it is held that the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.2 and 3.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents no.2 and 3 to refund the amount of Rs.147/- and Rs.1218/- to the complainant and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- for deficient services, harassment and mental agony.  In lumpsum, the respondents are directed to make the payment of Rs.3500/- (Rs.three thousand five hundred) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

Certified copy of this order be provided to both the

parties free of cost.
          File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:08.03.2016