DATE OF FILING: 20.2.2014.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 10.2.2016.
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Member:
Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Opposite Parties is the grievance of the complainant.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is using telephone bearing No. 9861588549 from the Reliance Company since 25.4.2009. The deduction has been made towards recharges, power plus correctly up to 2011. But as alleged from the month of January 2012 the deduction has been made wrongly, so he lost Rs.1000/- per month. When he elaborates his problem to O.P.No.1, he said that the Customer care is responsible. Then he went to the Customer Care for redressal of his problem, but all in vain. So he suffered from mental agony and harassment. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties he prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment , mental agony in the best interest of justice.
3. Despite valid notice, the Opposite Parties failed to enter their appearance and as a result they were proceeded ex-parte on dated 15.12.2015.
4. We heard argument from the side of authorized representative of the complainant at length. We have gone through the documents filed on record and perused the case record in detail. From the case record it is evident that the complainant recharged a power plus voucher on 7.9.2013 for Rs.72/- to avail less charges on call rate in his cell phone bearing No.9861588549 while making calls. In support of this, he has submitted a printed document of the message he received after recharge of the power plus voucher. The message mentions that the customer can enjoy all local calls at 1.2 per 2 second and it was valid for 90 days. The complainant has also contended that the validity of said voucher was over after use of 40/50 days which was valid up to 7.12.2013. This was also happening with the complainant from the year 2012 and as on the date of filing this complaint the complainant regularly pursued the matter with the customer care of Reliance Telcom Ltd. However, even the customer care also did not take any initiative and was not helpful to resolve the problem even after several requests made by the complainant. So, the complainant became harassed and humiliated and incurred loss due to unfair trade practice of the O.Ps.
5. Out of the above contention it appears that though this is a pretty case of Rs.72/- as the complainant has recharged the said voucher on 7.9.2013 and earlier or after to that no vouchers are submitted before this Forum for perusal. Though this is a merely a matter of Rs.72/- but the complainant as contended has felt aggrieved due to the unfair trade practice of the O.Ps. We feel that the complainant was forced to file this case as narrated in his complaint and written argument as the O.Ps did not give any heed to his grievance when he complained about non working of his power plus voucher after use of 40 to 50 days from the date of recharge. A common man can’t fight with the mighty business house and in case of mobile company we think the mobile operations are being controlled by modern sophisticated high-tech computer software and it is not uncommon that they can’t change the mobile voucher plans as per their profit motive interest. We feel that this complainant has certainly sustained some loss and mental injury due to the unfair trade practice and harassment caused by O.Ps to the complainant. We have also observed that the complainant for a petty loss he has filed this consumer dispute on payment of Rs.100/- towards court fees and in our view if someone is not so harassed he might have not come to redress his grievance before this Forum. Therefore, we feel that the contention of the complainant contains some substance to proceed with this dispute. Moreover, in this case the O.Ps though received the notice but did not prefer to contest this case and not filed any version in support of their case. In absence of any version or contention from the side of O.Ps, we are constrained to accept the uncontroverted contention of the complainant and in view of the discussion held above we accept the contentions of the complainant against the O.Ps. In our considered view, the O.Ps should not change the prevailing plans of any mobile scheme without informing/ intimating the same to the customers. In the present case without informing to the complainant the O.Ps has unilaterally changed the validity of power plus recharge voucher within 40/50days of its use which was valid for 90 days, so it amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, the O.Ps are liable to compensate the loss, harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant.
As far as the matter of compensation is concerned, we observed that in this case the complainant though claimed to have incurred loss of Rs.50,000/- toward mental agony, harassment and financial loss but no such tangible documentary evidence produced before us to prove his claim. As per the materials on record, the complainant has only filed a document which shows to have charged a voucher for Rs.72/- and it is also a fact that he has paid a sum of Rs.100/- towards court fees. He has also contended to have suffered from mental agony and being harassed by the O.Ps due to their unfair trade practice. It is also a fact that the complainant for the last one year attending his case in this Forum and he has also incurred some expenditure in this way due to the unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps. In this regard, in our view, and to meet the ends of justice an amount of Rs.500/- will be just and proper towards both cost and compensation to be paid by the O.Ps to compensate the loss caused to the complainant due to the unfair trade practice. Our decision is fortified with the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Manager, BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. Vs. Asif Shaukat Qureshi reported in 2004 (8) CLD 621 where it was held that “mobile phone company cannot unilaterally change scheme opted by subscriber without giving prior intimation”. In the instant case the O.P. Reliance Company has changed the validity of the alleged power plus voucher after use of 40 to 50 days though it was valid for 90 day. In the light of the above discussion and decision, we allow the case of the complainant against the O.P No. 1 who is liable to compensate the complainant for his unfair trade practice.
In the result, we allow the case of the complainant against the O.P No.1 and O.P. No.2 is exonerated from his liability since the complaint has specifically not prayed any relief against O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the complainant towards financial loss, cost of litigation, mental agony and for harassment. The aforesaid amount is to be paid by the O.P. No.1 to the complainant two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the same under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant is disposed off accordingly.
The order is pronounced in on this day of 10th February 2016. The office is directed to supply copies of the order to parties free of cost.
