Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/934/2019

Ashok Kumar Nanda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Jio Infocom - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

24 Jan 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	934 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	13.09.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	24.01.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Ashok Kumar Nanda, aged 66 years son of Late Sh.Prem Chand Nanda, R/o House No.1398,   Sector 40-B, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

Reliance Jio Infocom having its office at B-93, Phase-8, Industrial Area Mohali, through its Manager/Regional Head/Authorized signatory.  

 

    ….. Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  : Complainant in person.

   Sh.Ammish Goyal, Adv. for OP.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

         Concisely put, the complainant, subscriber of Jio Mobile Connection No.985519559, was to travel abroad – London on 17.6.2019 to attend a marriage and was to return back on 26.6.2019, therefore, he got his above said connection recharged for activation of ISD from OPs and paid an amount of Rs.1101/- for it on 17.6.2019 vide Reference No.6153418332 having international roaming validity of 28 days (Ann.C-2).  However, on reaching London, the complainant was shocked to see that the said ISD pack was not activated, as a result, the complainant had to use local mobile by paying hefty charges in pounds.  It is submitted that on coming back to India, when complainant brought this matter to the notice of OP, they told that his  ISD pack was not activated and when the complainant demanded refund, they activated the pack  after 27.6.2019.  The complainant raised his grievance with the OP by sending emails but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2]       The OP has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that after the successful recharge of the coupon, International roaming had been immediately activated on the mobile number of the complainant and a system generated email & SMS notification was also sent to his registered email & mobile number on which the coupon was recharged successfully. It is submitted that the International Roaming had been activated on the mobile number of complainant on 17.6.2019 itself when the recharge had been got successful.  It is also submitted that the OP has a bilateral tie up in London (UK) and sponsored network tie up with Hutchison 3G & Telefonica O2 and even the complainant had also opted the services of the said sponsored network after reaching London but the same had not made any call during his stay at London between the said period intentionally.  It is pleaded that no necessity had arisen at the end of the complainant to use the mobile phone during his stay at London as per the records.  It is also pleaded that the complainant did not lodge any complaint with OP in this regard by sending email or contacting Toll Free number of Customer Care. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions made by OP.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for OP and have perused the entire record.  

 

6]      The core issue in the present complaint is that the ISD facility has not been activated on the mobile connection of the complainant for which he admittedly paid an amount of Rs.1101/- to OP.  The stand of the OP is that the complainant himself did not activate it properly.  The stand of OP is not acceptable as there is nothing to show that the services of the plan were activated at the end of OP.  Undoubtedly recharge for international roaming was successful. No evidence in the shape of successful activation has been made part of the record by the OP for the reasons best known to it.  It is gathered from the record that the emails sent by the complainant assailing his claim have not been entertained properly by the OP and time & again the complainant was served with system generated emails in reply to the emails sent with fake assurance of looking into the matter within 48 hours, but the main issue remained unresolved for couple of months, which highlight the faulty functioning of the OP Company.  It is also considered that the complainant, who can spent huge amount for his abroad visit, would not unnecessarily approach this Commission alleging deficiency in service against OP for refund of meager amount of Rs.1101/- from OP.  Thus the deficiency in service on the part of OP is writ large.

 

7]       Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, the deficiency in service on the part of OP is proved.  Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the OP to refund an amount of Rs.1101/- to the complainant and also to pay him a compository amount of Rs.2500/- towards compensation, for causing him harassment ,as well as litigation expenses.

 

         This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 day from the date of its receipt, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.1000/- apart from above relief. 

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

Announced

24^th January, 2022                                                                           

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER