Order-9.
Date-30/12/2016.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant in short is that he purchased a mobile phone being No.9331028374 CDMA at a cost of Rs.6900/- on 23/08/2015 from a retail store under the O.P. The complainant is a consumer under O.P. for the last ten years. The complainant’s mobile was under CDMA system. Curiously enough the complainant found that on and from 01/06/2016 the said number of the complainant has been discontinued on the ground that CDMA system is no more and has been upgraded to GSM 4G. The complainant met the officials of the O.P. at Chowringhee Road to enquire reason of disconnection of his mobile number. The concerned officials of the O.P. blatantly told the complainant to throw the said phone and buy a new one. The complainant states that he could not be able to transact business such as booking room in the Guest House, Bank OTP, LIC Mutual Fund, IRCTC, GOIBIBO and as a result the complainant suffered huge monetary loss, mental agony and harassment. The complainant sent a letter on 08/06/2016 to Ms. Dwipannnita Das an official of the O.P. stating the said facts and requested to restore connection to his said mobile number, but to no good. It is stated that O.P. is deficient and negligent in service for arbitrary disconnection of the complainant’s mobile phone. Hence this case.
O.P. has not appeared in this case in spite of service of summons. The case has proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.
Point for Decision
- Whether the O.P. is deficient in rendering service to the complainant ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
We have travelled over the documents on record, namely, xerox copy of invoice of purchase dated 23/08/2016, Xerox copy of letter addressed to MS Dwipannita Das of O.P. company dated 08/06/2016, Xerox copy of another letter dated 29/07/2016 addressed to Ms. Deepanwita Das of O.P. company as filed from the end of the complainant.
We find that complainant purchased the mobile being No.9331028374 CDMA at a cost of Rs.6,900/- on 23/08/2015. Complainant has alleged that on and from 01/06/2016 the said number has been discontinued on the ground that CDMA system is no more and has been upgraded to GSM 4G. On a search from Google we find that from Board decision of the O.P. published on 14/04/2016 the O.P. reliance company finally announced official process to upgrade CDMA to GSM 4G network and it has been stated that after 31/05/2016 which is last date of Reliance CDMA in India, customers can manually initiate 4G upgrade process to keep number in Reliance Network through 4G service. Reliance as we find has started to shutting down CDMA network mainly EVDO service in many Circles after April, 14th and already sent SMSs to port out or upgrade to 4G network and after May 31st there won’t be available any process to port out or upgrade to 4G personally. We also find that reliance has also enumerated the processes to upgrade reliance CDMA to GSM 4G network and Reliance Communications also introduced a new SMS based LTE data activation facility. We find that for some reasons or other complainant could not avail the opportunity. So it appears that Reliance Communications shutdown its CDMA services from 31/05/2016 and CDMA network shutdown for good. This is the one side of the coin. The other side is that such a decision of the O.P. company has resulted in loss of billions of national currency because after 31st May all reliance CDMA phones are rendered useless. The O.P. Company has not also stopped selling of CDMA mobiles long before such a decision, for the reason best known to it.
In the instant case, we find that the complainant purchased the CDMA mobile at a cost of Rs.6,900/- just on 23/08/2015. The complainant as we find has lost his currency because he found his mobile phone after 31st May useless. We think that O.P. company cannot evade its financial liability for such loss caused to the complainant. We think that O.P. company has been deficient in rendering service to the complainant to such extent. Moreover, O.P. company did not think it proper to reply to the letters of the complainant dated 08/06/2016 and 29/07/2016. None also came forward from the side of the O.P. to contradict or controvert the version of the complainant. The evidence of the complainant also remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. All these go to show that the O.P. has put up a gesture of deficiency of service to the complainant. We think that complainant should be compensated as such.
It appears that the complainant has used the mobile set for over 10 months and considering the depreciation value and the usage of the mobile, we think that he should be compensated with 50 percent value of the subject product.
In result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed ex-parte but on merit against the O.P.
O.P. is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3450/- being the 50 percent of the value of the subject mobile apart from litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In default complainant will be entitled to put order into execution and in that event O.P. shall be liable to pay penal damage at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month to be paid to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.
