Haryana

Panchkula

CC/471/2019

NISHANT JOSHI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MANOJ KUMAR ROHILLA& HARNEK SINGH SANDHU

17 Oct 2023

ORDER

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	471 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	19.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	17.10.2023

 

Nishant Joshi, R/o House No.1106A, Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana.

    ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. RCP 14(TC 23), Phase-4, B-Block, 3rd       Floor, C4 130 Twane-Belapur Road, Gansoli, Navi Mumbai-   400701, Maharashtra, India through its General Manager/        Authorised Signatory.

2.     Jio Store, Ground Floor, DSS 261, Sector-20, Main Market,        Panchkula-134116, Haryana through its General Manager/    Authorised  Signatory.

                                                                      ……Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                        Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Harnek Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                         Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                       

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are the complainant is resident of house no.1106A, Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana for the last 10 years, and was using the postpaid no. 7018426342 of OP No.1, for the last several years; on 09.06.2019, the complainant was surprised to see that there was no network on his mobile no.7018426342; immediately he rushed to OP No.2 with a request to start his number as no previous outstanding amount was pending towards him. It is stated that the complainant had apprised the OPs qua retention of the said number as it was the only number on which he was in contact with other staff members. The OPs after checking had informed him that there was a system error and his number would be activated after 1 or 2 hours. An amount of Rs.399/- was paid by him(the complainant) in advance, so as to secure his number as suggested by OPs.  It is stated that the complainant again contacted the OPs on their helpline number and informed that without this number, he was unable to use the third party apps like Paytm, Ola Cab and banking transactions and, in case, his number was not activated in time, he would not be able to use the said third party apps. Further, it is stated that he had the apprehension that his number could be allotted  to someone else, if the number was not activated on time and to secure this umber, he made online payment totaling of Rs.1,699/-. It is averred that his number was disconnected by OPs without any prior information. The complainant asked the Ops, if they are not able to continue the services, then his number may be ported in prepaid. On this, the complainant was informed that the excess amount would be refunded to him. It is stated that the number was ported successfully from postpaid to prepaid but the excess amount of Rs.1,699/- was not refunded. Due to the act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notices, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua lacking of territorial jurisdiction at Panchkula; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts. It is stated that the complainant had purchased the mobile connection having number 7018426342, which pertains to Himachal Pradesh Zone (Himachal Telecom Circle) situated at Tehsil-Sadar, District Bilaspur (Himachal Pradesh);  No cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. It is submitted that the complainant himself approached the Ops for converting of his number from post-paid to pre-paid and only on the request of the complainant, the number of the complainant was converted by the OPs from postpaid to pre-paid and an excess amount of Rs.1,709/-, which was lying in the postpaid account of the complainant, was to send him for refund through cheque  bearing no.203573 dated 28.06.2019 but the same had been received  back by OPs undelivered. The change in address by the complainant was never intimated at any point of time. Thus, due to aforementioned narrated facts, the excess amount of Rs.1,709/- could not be refunded to the complainant and thus, no fault can be attributed towards the Ops. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and he cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own wrong.

                On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was using the Jio postpaid mobile no.7018426342. It is denied that there was no network on the mobile of the complainant on 09.06.2019. It is submitted that the complainant had not lodged even a single complaint number to show that he had any network issue. It is submitted that the complainant had made the payment of Rs.399/- vide transaction no.5125616403, which shows that there was no network issue. Rest of the allegations alleged by the complainant has been denied and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Annexure OP-1/A along with documents Annexure OP1/1 & OP1/2 and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant as well as OPs and gone through the entire record available on file including written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant as well as Ops, minutely and carefully.

5.During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) and contended  that the excess payment of Rs. 1,699/- as made by the complainant in postpaid mobile no. 7018426342 prior to its porting in prepaid, has not been refunded to him and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.On the other hand, the OPs have contested the complaint, apart from merits, by raising preliminary objections that the District Consumer Commission at Panchkula lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. The learned counsel on behalf of the OPs No.1 & 2 vehemently argued that the present complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(old Act), wherein the complainant was not entitled to file the complaint only on the basis of his residence at Panchkula. It is argued that the complainant was issued his postpaid number in question on his application dated 16.06.2019(Annexure OP-1/1), wherein his address was mentioned as H.No.50/1 Panjgain(126), Sadar, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh-174012. The learned counsel invited our attention towards the Aadhar card of the complainant, wherein his address is mentioned as resident of H.No.50/1, Panjgain(126), Sadar, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh-174012;  thus, it is contended that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed upon the case law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case title as Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2010(1) SCC 135.

7.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has controverted  the above mentioned contentions as raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the Ops No.1 & 2, stating that the excess payment amounting to Rs.1,699/- was made online and that the complainant is resident of H.No.1106A, Sector-4, Panchkula for the last several years. The learned counsel invited our attention towards Annexure C-1 to show that the payment was made online from his debit card. The learned counsel also invited our attention towards the ration card and driving license(Annexure C-3 & C-4) of the complainant to show that the complainant is the resident of Panchkula since 25.11.2013/27.01.2014. Reliance has been placed on the following case laws:-

1. M.D.Air Deccan Vs. Shri Ram Gopal Aggarwal, reported in 2014(1) CLT 179 (SCDRC, Meghalaya).
2. Spice Ltd. Vs.Ranju Aery in Revision Petition no.1396 of 2016 decided on 07.02.2017(NCDRC).
3. Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta in Civil Appeal no.6237 of 1990 decided on 05.11.1993(SC).
4. The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs.Lalitha (Dead) Through & others in Civil appeal no.92 of 1998 decided on 11.12.2003(SC).
5. Alchemist Limited & Anr. Vs. State Bank of Sikkim & Ors. in Civil Appeal no.1426 of 2007 decided on 16.03.2007(SC).

 

8.After hearing the rival contention of the parties, it is found that, as per Annexure C-1, payment, through online mode, was made by the complainant vide his debit card through several transactions as mentioned in Annexure C-1. In the matter of online payment, the Hon’ble National Commission in case(supra) i.e. Spice Ltd. Vs.Ranju Aery in Revision Petition no.1396 of 2016 decided on 07.02.2017 (NCDRC) and M.D.Air Deccan and Ors. Vs. Ram Gopal Aggarwal reported in 2014(1) CLT 179 (SCDRC, Meghalaya) has settled the issue by holding that the complaint is maintainable at the place, wherefrom the payment was made online. As per Annexure C-1, it is evident that the payment was made online by the complainant from Panchkula as he is the resident of Panchkula prior to obtaining of his postpaid connection no. 7018426342. Moreover, as per complainant, he had approached the OP No.2 i.e. Jio store, Sector-20, Main Market, Panchkula in connection with the redressal of his grievances and upon asking of the same, the complainant had depositedthe excess amount in question. There is no affidavit on behalf of the General Manager of OP No.2 that the complainant had not approached it as alleged and in view of the above stated position, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the Ops qua the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission is rejected.

9.On merits, the Ops have admitted that the excess payment of Rs.1,709/- was received from the complainant, which they were ready to refund to him vide cheque no.203573 dated 18.06.2019. As per version of the Ops, the cheque could not be delivered to him (the complainant) because they were not aware about the residential address of the complainant.

10.This contention is also not credible because the present complaint was instituted on 19.08.2019 and the OPs had appeared through counsel on 15.10.2019 in pursuance to the notice, which was sent to them, in compliance of the order dated 22.08.2019. Thus, it had come into the notice of the OPs, after the receipt of the notice from the Commission, that the complainant was resident of Panchkula and accordingly, they could have delivered the cheque of excess amount either directly to the complainant or through the Commission but we find no such efforts was ever made by the Ops. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Ops had been deficient, while rendering services to the complainant, for which they are held liable to compensate him, jointly and severally.

11.In relief, the complainant has prayed for the refund of excess amount of Rs.1,699/- to him along with the compensation of Rs.50,000/- & Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment etc. and litigation charges respectively. The learned counsel for the Ops placing reliance upon the order dated 04.10.2006 passed by the Delhi State Commission in case titled as Yashpal Vs. SSG Pharma (P) Ltd. in appeal no.A-803 of 2006 decided 04.10.2006(SCDRD, Delhi) argued that the complainant has claimed dis-propionate relief and thus, requested for rejection of the prayer of the complainant. After hearing the learned counsels, we find that the complainant is entitled to the refund of excess amount of Rs.1,709/- to him along with adequate compensation..

12.As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.1,709/- along with interest @9% per annum(simple interest) to the complainant w.e.f. from filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

 

13.The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:17.10.2023

 

 

     Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav           Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                  Member                        Member                         President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President

 

 

CC.471 of 2019

Present:             Sh. Harnek Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                                         

 

                       Remaining arguments heard. Now, to come upon 17.10.2023  for orders.

Dt.05.10.2023

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President

 

Present:             Sh. Harnek Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                         Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                                         

 

                                Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed against OPs No.1 & 2 with costs.

                         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt.17.10.2023

 

 

       Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav       Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President