Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/281/2016

Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Communications Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

J.R. Syal

03 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/281/2016
Date of Institution	:	26/04/2016
Date of Decision	:	03/07/2018

 

Om Parkash s/o Sh. Babu Lal, Resident of H.No.3199, Sec. 23-D, Chandigarh – 160023.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Reliance Communications Limited, DLF Building, IT Park, Tower-C, Gate No.3, 1^st Floor, Chandigarh, through its Area Manager.

 

[2]     Sh. Gurdev Singh, Area Office (Mobile Shop), Reliance Mobile Store, S.C.O. 37, Sector 11, Panchkula.

 

[3]     Reliance Communications Limited, H-Block, 1^st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai-400710, Maharashtra, India, through its Managing Director.

 

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. J.R. Syal, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Ammish Goel, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Om Parkash, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Reliance Communications Limited and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that lured by the offer of 50% discount propounded by the Opposite Parties for Open Market Plan, on rental of Rs.1198/-, he contacted Opposite Party No.2 for porting his Mobile No.9056176176 from TATA Docomo to Reliance and submitted all the requisite documents on 05.01.2016. On 13.01.2016 the GSM Postpaid Plan was activated by Reliance and a message to this effect was flashed on the Mobile of the Complainant. The Complainant received 1st bill for a sum of Rs.398/- for the period from 13.1.2016 to 25.1.2016 through e-mail on 26.01.2016, against which he paid Rs.400/- on 01.02.2016. It has been averred that the Complainant received 2nd bill on 27.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.1371.71/- to be paid up to 14.03.2016. On receipt of the said bill, the Complainant made a complaint on 28.02.2016 informing that his Tariff Plan was JALSA599 under GSM Postpaid Plans whereby on rental of Rs.1198/- the offer was Rs.599/- after giving 50% discount as per the advertisement/brochure. On 29.02.2016, the Complainant was assured of getting the requisite waiver. However, on 03.03.2016 the Complainant received a message that new retention of his 3G_1GB_0_Unlimited will be activated w.e.f. 03.03.2016 under the Tariff Plan of RGJALSA699 with monthly rent of Rs.699/-. Since the said Tariff Plan was not the Tariff Plan opted by the Complainant, he took up with the matter with the Opposite Party as to why they suo-moto changed the plan, but to no success. Eventually, a legal notice dated 15.03.2016 was got served upon the Opposite Parties, but they slept over the matter and failed to respond to the same. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties resisted the Complaint by filing their joint reply, inter alia, pleading that the Complainant opted for the Plan namely RGJALSA 1198 on 05.01.2016 and in the said Plan no discount of 50% as alleged by the Complainant was ever given to him by the Opposite Parties. Subsequently, the Complainant made a call to the Opposite Parties and requested for change of Plan. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties had offered number of Plans to the Complainant as per his requirement. Thereafter, the Complainant had opted for the new Plan namely RGJALSA 699 which was activated on 03.03.2016 which is still in operation and even in the said Plan no 50% discount was ever given by the Opposite Parties. Thus, the Plan had only been changed upon receiving the request from the Complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
5.        The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments tendered on behalf of the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Parties.
7.         Annexure C-1 is an advertisement vide which Opposite Parties had offered 50% discount on Open Market Plan and on rental of Rs.1198/- the exclusive offer was Rs.599/-. Similarly for a Plan of Rs.998/- exclusive offer was Rs.499/-, for Plan ‘Freedom’ offer was Rs.350/- and for ‘One India One Rate’, the offer was Rs.599/-. Besides this, the advertisement/brochure also mentions CDMA Postpaid Plans. Ld. Counsel for the Complainant argued that the Complainant opted for market plan rental 1198/- for which exclusive offer was Rs.599/-, after giving 50 discount. This plan was having unlimited calls (local + STD + Roaming), 1 GB (3G Data), unlimited 2G, unlimited SMS. However, later on, the Opposite Parties unilaterally changed the tariff plan of the Complainant to RG JALSA 699 with a monthly rent of Rs.699/-. The Customer Application Form (Annexure OP-1) placed on record by the Opposite Parties makes it emphatically clear that the Complainant opted for the Tariff Plan JALSA 1198. It is thus evident that the Complainant has not been released the connection under tariff plan for which he has requested for and submitted the requisite documents. At any rate, the Opposite Parties cannot suo-moto change the plan as has been done in the case of the Complainant. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part, as the Complainant himself opted for the new plan namely RG JALSA 699. The onus to prove the same lay at the door of the Opposite Parties. However, there is nothing on record which could suggest that the Complainant ever approached the Opposite Parties for changing his plan from RGJALSA 1198 to RGJALSA 699. Hence, in the absence of any such proof, the version of the Opposite Parties in this regard is hollow and deserves no merit. The act and conduct of the Opposite Parties therefore clearly establishes deficiency in service and they indulged in unfair trade practice causing unprecedented harassment and pain to the Complainant.
8.         It is also important to note that the Complainant served a legal notice dated 15.03.2016 (Annexure C-8) upon the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, but the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 did not give any response to the said legal notice. The contention of the Learned Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 that the legal notice was not received, cannot be accepted, because the Complainant has annexed the copies of the postal receipts along with the copy of the legal notice sent by him by registered post to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, through his Advocate. It is not the case of Opposite Parties that the address mentioned in the legal notices is not the correct address of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.  The fact that the legal notice of the Complainant were not replied by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 also corroborates the allegations and evidence of the Complainant. 
9.         The Complainant in the prayer clause has sought directions to the Opposite Parties to withdraw the monthly rental bill for a sum of Rs.1371.71/- issued on 25.02.2016 (Annexure C-5). However, per material on record, we cannot grant said relief to the Complainant, especially keeping in view the fact that the Complainant had already paid the said bill and subsequent bills.  However, the act of Opposite Parties in unilaterally changing the tariff plan other than the one opted by the Complainant itself proves unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Since the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, in our considered opinion, if a compensation, in the sum of Rs.7,500/-, along with Rs.7,500/- towards costs of the present proceedings, is granted to him, it would be reasonable, fair and adequate.
10.         In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

 

[a]    To pay Rs.7,500/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[b]    To pay Rs.7,500/- as cost of litigation;

 

11.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid. 
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
03/07/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President