Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/77/2014

Neelakshi Chopra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Communications Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Inderpreet Singh

05 Mar 2015

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	77 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	13.02.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	05.03.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Neelakshi Chopra wife of Sh.P.K.Chopra, resident of H.No.92, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Reliance Communications Ltd. DLF Bldg. Tower F, Phase I, Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Branch/Regional Manager.

 

2]  Reliance Communications Ltd., H Block 1^st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City Navi Mumbai 400709, through its Managing Director.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

        

 

Argued By:  Sh.Inderpreet Singh, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Ammish Goel, Counsel for OPs.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case of the complainant, she was provided a cell phone connection by Opposite Party Company with No.9316114262 for the last many years.  The complainant traveled abroad last year for over three months from 22^nd May, 2012 to 5^th Sept., 2012 and took SIM Card for international roaming facility from OPs on her above mentioned mobile number, on deposit of Rs.6000/- before departure from India. Apart from this, the complainant was also having a credit balance of Rs.1101.82 on her account with the Opposite Party Company. 

         It is averred that without any warning or any reason, the complainant’s international mobile SIM Card was arbitrarily disconnected by the OPs in July, 2012 while she was abroad. She was thus deprived of the mobile phone facility which was promised to her and for which she had made the necessary payment to the company in advance.  It is also averred that the said mobile phone number 9316114262 was also registered with the complainant’s banker and with her credit card companies, but due to illegal disconnection of her SIM Card, one time password for operating her bank accounts and credit cards could not be obtained by her as her phone was not reachable. Thereby the complainant could not use her credit cards or make online purchase or make online reservations or operate her bank accounts or debit cards.  Moreover, when the complainant returned to India, she found that her local mobile connection was also disconnected by the OPs.  Further, to the shock of complainant, she was sent legal notice by the Opposite Party Company vide Ann.K alleging that she owned money to the company and threatening her with legal consequences. However, the complainant after a lot of efforts over a number of days, got the phone connection restored from the Opposite Party Company. It is pleaded that the complainant was again sent a wrong bill showing Rs.552/- due (Ann.E) for the month of October, when instead the company had with it a credit of Rs.3647.86 lying in her account and opening credit as on 7.11.2012, as per their own bill dated 7.12.2012 was Rs.3083/- Ann.L.  The complainant wrote numerous letters to the Opposite Party Company to compensate her for the loss caused to her as well for the mental harassment and distress, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service, which caused mental & physical harassment to the complainant apart from financial loss.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and admitted the complainant’s availing their services vide MDN No.9316114262 and also her availing facility of international roaming on her MDN.  It is specifically denied that the connection of the complainant was illegally disconnected as alleged.  It is stated that the complainant has not disclosed the fact that the answering OPs has refunded an amount of Rs.4000/- by posting an adjustment on 06.9.2012 and posted a waiver of Rs.4000/- on 23.10.2012 (Ann.A-2). The issuance of legal notice, as alleged by the complainant, has been disputed and denied. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant has preferred this complaint on the ground that she was the subscriber of a mobile connection bearing No.9316114262 of the OPs since quite long and has been regularly paying all her dues raised by them for the use of this mobile telephony connection.  The complainant during one of her foreign visits wanted to use the same mobile number during her travel to another country and for that purpose she made a payment of Rs.6000/- in two installments i.e. Rs.4000/- & Rs.2000/- on 10.5.2012 & 14.5.2012 respectively.  It is also claimed by the complainant that there was a credit balance of Rs.1101.82Ps in her aforementioned connection account. The complainant was given an international sim card to be used abroad.  The complainant is aggrieved of the non-functioning of her mobile number/connection during the period from May, 2012 to Sept., 2012, when she was in a foreign country and for this reason, she was not able to be in touch with her family members & friends.  Furthermore, as the telephone number, which she was already using, was also being used by her for her electronic transactions for purchases as well as buying goods and services in that country. The complainant had also her mobile number registered with her banker and in absence of the connectivity, she could not use the coded digital facility available on her phone for her intended transactions.  The complainant claims to have been harassed on this score as she felt marooned in a foreign land.     

 

6]       The complainant on her return was shocked as the local telephone facility on her phone number too was disconnected by the OPs and a demand of Rs.3642.42Ps was raised against outstanding by sending a legal notice dated 6.8.2012 asking her to pay the same or face legal consequences.  The complainant raised this matter with the Opposite Parties vide her e-mail dated 25.9.2012 (Ann.F-1) and demanded the restoration of her connection and also an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards her harassment as well as expenditure incurred due to the non-functional roaming facility on her mobile.  The complainant had also demanded another Rs.10,000/- towards mental trauma of having received a legal notice demanding an exaggerated amount of Rs.3642.42Ps.  The complainant has sought the quoted relief on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

7]       The Opposite Parties have admitted that the complainant is their bonafide costumer and that she had also subscribed for an international roaming facility on her mobile number of the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties have also admitted that due to some reasons she could not have used her mobile number while she was on her foreign trip.  However, Opposite Parties have claimed that on hearing from her side, a credit entry of Rs.4000/- each was made by them on 6.9.2012 and 23.10.2012 giving her the benefit, more than the questionable amount of Rs.3642.42Ps. raised in her account.  The Opposite Parties have claimed that they were prompt in acting on her request received at their end through e-mail.  Though Opposite Parties have failed to satisfactorily reply to her demand of compensation on account of her having suffered agony, harassment and unwanted stress for the non-functioning of her mobile  number in the foreign country and also on account of her having received the legal notice threatening her of impending legal action. 

 

8]       It is apparent from the reply of the Opposite Parties and also the e-mails of the complainant demanding compensation from the Opposite Parties that the complainant had raised her genuine concerns on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties but it is abundantly clear that the Opposite Parties preferred only to make good the loss on account of wrong billing, but it neither apologized for the deficiency in service on their part and also having served upon her a legal notice nor there was any offer of token amount so as to assuage her vexed feeling and hurt.  It is necessary to quote here that though the complainant had raised the demand of Rs.10,000/- each as compensation on account of wrongful demand as well as serving of unwarranted legal notice, but the complainant preferred to raise the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.80,000/-, which we feel is to exorbitant and is not justified in any manner.  It is also necessary to mention her that on not hearing any favourable reply from the Opposite Parties, the complainant had to engage a counsel and seek redressal to her grievance by moving present complaint against the OPs and for this reason, she is entitled for litigation expenses too.  We therefore are of the opinion that the present complaint of the complainant deserves to succeed against the OPs.

 

9]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. The Opposite Parties are directed jointly & severally to pay an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- along with litigation expenses amounting to Rs.7000/-   

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses of Rs.7000/-. 

 

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

Announced

05^th March, 2015

                                                                             Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER