Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1005/2016

Dhawal Bhandari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance communications Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In person

06 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/1005/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	09/11/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	06/09/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Dhawal Bhandari S/o Sh. R.K. Bhandari, R/o H.No.3320, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh – 160019.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

[1]  Reliance Communications Limited, Regd. Office: ‘H’ Block, 1^st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400709, through its duly authorized officer.

 

[2]  Reliance Communications Limited, Punjab Region Office: Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, DLF Building, Tower-F, Near Kishangarh, Chandigarh – 160101, through its Duly Authorized Officer.

 

[3]  Chasma Shah Sales & Services Pvt. Limited, Reliance Communications Limited, Address: Booth No.101, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh – 160009, through its Duly Authorized Officer.

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   SH. SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1 & 2	:	Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate.
For OP No.3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, cajoled by the introductory pre-paid plan ‘Monthly Lifetime High Speed Data 1 GB/month for life time for Rs.3001/-’, introduced by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, the Complainant, who is a practicing Advocate, purchased the same from the Opposite Party No.3, on 13/11/2015, by paying Rs.4425/- vide Annexure C-2. It has been alleged that the said connection worked till April 2016, with few issues, but in May, 2016 it stopped working. On complaining, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 told the Complainant that they shutted their CDMA services and all the existing users would be shifted to their upcoming Jio network. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainants, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainants have filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. Since, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.     Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement have stated that all the existing subscribers of the Company, with the prior approval of DOT, were duly intimated about the discontinuation of the CDMA services, and were further requested to get their connection MNP with the option of choosing the GSM network/ services of the company. The said option was also given to the Complainant, but he has not chosen to exercise the said option. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed replication to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statements by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the Complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and also perused the record, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.     The main grievance of the Complainant is that after purchase of a CDMA Scheme of internet data and a dongle from the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties closed the said Scheme, pre-maturely, which was supposed to run till 28.10.2026 and on account of which, the Complainant was put to loss of Rs.4425/-, besides causing him uncalled-for mental harassment.

 

8.     After scrutinizing the documentary evidence placed on the file by both the sides, we are of the concerted view that the Complainant had purchased the aforesaid Scheme of internet data and a dongle, which was rendered useless, due to foreclosure of the said Scheme by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have also admitted that they had discontinued the said Scheme/CDMA services in order to upgrade the existing services to LTE Services, for which prior permission of the TRAI was obtained. However, there is nothing on record to show that the Opposite Parties ever tried to accommodate the Complainant in the new Scheme of things, by reimbursing him the charges for the dongle purchased/ the charged paid for the internet data. This failure on the part of the Opposite Parties, which to our mind surely & definitely amounts to deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.

 

9.     In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.4425/- to the Complainant;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation.

 

10.     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% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  

 

11.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

06^th Sept., 2017                                Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                       Sd/- 

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”