Shri Raghavendra General Store, authorised Vodafone currency rechargin agent, Opp: Sunder petrol, St V/S G. Srinivas Reddy S/o. Venkat Ramreddy, Raichur - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/34

G. Srinivas Reddy S/o. Venkat Ramreddy, Raichur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Raghavendra General Store, authorised Vodafone currency rechargin agent, Opp: Sunder petrol, St - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. A. Chandrashekhar

21 Jun 2010

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/34

G. Srinivas Reddy S/o. Venkat Ramreddy, Raichur						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Shri Raghavendra General Store, authorised Vodafone currency rechargin agent, Opp: Sunder petrol, Station Road, Raichur Customer Care Incharge Vodafone, Care, Shop No. 11 & 12 Vaikuntam Complex, Raichur						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj, Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant G. Srinivas Reddy against the two Respondents. The brief facts of the complaint are that: The complainant is the customer of Respondent No-2 Vodafone Sim Card bearing Cell No. 9620112744 and he has recharged his cell with currency of Rs. 122/- on 19-04-10 from Respondent No-1 Vodafone No. 9980130517 but the said currency amount was not debited into the mobile phone of the complainant but after noticing the same on the same day the complainant approached the Respondent No-1 and informed about the non recharging of his cell with the amount of Rs. 122/- but the Respondent No-1 has informed the complainant that, the amount has been deducted in his phone currency but same was not debited to the account of complainant. In this regard the complainant has made request to the Respondent No-1 for to refund the amount but the Respondent No-1 has expressed his helplessness and asked to approach the Respondent No- 2. Accordingly the complainant has approached the Respondent NO-2 and explained his problem what he has faced and the loss he has suffered but the Respondent No-2 by one or the other pretext postponed the matter about more than 20 occasions and even till the date of filing not corrected the problem of the complainant. Further it is contended that, since the Respondent No-2 being a responsible person who is meant for customer care ought to have rectify the mistake but due to sheer negligence and callous attitude on his part he has caused the complaint to suffer in great stride. Hence he has sought for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards business dealings and damages along with cost of the litigation expenditure and also for additional damages. 2. The Respondents 1 & 2 have not appeared even inspite of service of the notice from this Forum and hence they have placed Ex-parte vide order dt. 03-06-10. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked one document at Ex.P-1. 4. Heard the arguments of the complainant side and perused the record. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents in not settling his claim, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that the complainant is the customer of Respondent No-2 Vodafone Sim Card bearing Cell No. 9620112744 and he has recharged his cell with currency of Rs. 122/- on 19-04-10 from Respondent No-1 Vodafone No. 9980130517 vide document Ex.P-1, but the said currency amount was neither debited to the mobile phone of the complainant nor the amount was refunded to the complainant or settled his claim by the Respondents. 7. The complainant in order to prove his case of approaching to the Respondent No-1 for payment of amount or to recharge his mobile phone sim card No. 9980130517 with the Respondent No-1 phone bearing No. 9980130517 has produced letter issued by the Respondent No-1 at Ex.P-1. On close perusal of Ex.P-1, it is very much clear that, the Respondent No-1 is the agent of Respondent NO-2 Vodafone Company who is running Raghavendra General Store at Arab Mohalla, Circle and he has accepted the offer of the complainant for to recharge the Cell Phone of the complainant for an amount of Rs. 122/- and accordingly he has recharged the same with his cell phone bearing No. 9980130517 on 19-04-10 as contended by the complainant in his complaint. 8. The complainant in order to prove his case, he has filed affidavit-evidence of his own and narrated all the facts in it. Even inspite of service of the notices neither the Respondent No-1 nor the Respondent No-2 appeared before this Forum and denied the allegations of complainant. In the absence of rebuttal evidence by the Respondents the evidence of the complainant cannot be discarded or rejected without proper grounds. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that, the claim of the complainant is genuine one and the act of the Respondent is illegal and uncalled for. Non settlement of the claim of the complainant by the Respondent is no doubt a case of deficiency in service on their part as contended by the complainant in his complaint. The pleadings of the complainant case are corroborated by his affidavit-evidence. Hence we answered point No-1 in affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 9. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest, towards loss of business dealings and damages along with cost of the litigation etc., In order to prove his case, the complainant has produced only one document under Ex.P-1. On perusal of Ex.P-1 and his pleadings it is very clear that, the complainant has offered recharge with the Respondent No-1 only to the tune of Rs. 122/-. Apart from that no other documents are filed before this Forum to show that, he has suffered loss in his business to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. Under such circumstances, the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- cannot be accepted as it is excessive and exorbitant one. Hence we came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to claim to the tune of Rs. 122/- which is the amount he paid for to recharge his cell phone to the Respondent No-1, 10. We have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents, as such we have granted an amount of Rs. 3,000/- recoverable by the complainant from the Respondents under the head of deficiency in service, As regards to the cost of litigation is concerned, the complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation 11. In view of our finding on Point Nos.1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost against Respondents. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 5,122/- from the Respondents jointly and severally. The Respondents have to comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 21-06-10.) Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj, Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant G. Srinivas Reddy against the two Respondents. The brief facts of the complaint are that: The complainant is the customer of Respondent No-2 Vodafone Sim Card bearing Cell No. 9620112744 and he has recharged his cell with currency of Rs. 122/- on 19-04-10 from Respondent No-1 Vodafone No. 9980130517 but the said currency amount was not debited into the mobile phone of the complainant but after noticing the same on the same day the complainant approached the Respondent No-1 and informed about the non recharging of his cell with the amount of Rs. 122/- but the Respondent No-1 has informed the complainant that, the amount has been deducted in his phone currency but same was not debited to the account of complainant. In this regard the complainant has made request to the Respondent No-1 for to refund the amount but the Respondent No-1 has expressed his helplessness and asked to approach the Respondent No- 2. Accordingly the complainant has approached the Respondent NO-2 and explained his problem what he has faced and the loss he has suffered but the Respondent No-2 by one or the other pretext postponed the matter about more than 20 occasions and even till the date of filing not corrected the problem of the complainant. Further it is contended that, since the Respondent No-2 being a responsible person who is meant for customer care ought to have rectify the mistake but due to sheer negligence and callous attitude on his part he has caused the complaint to suffer in great stride. Hence he has sought for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards business dealings and damages along with cost of the litigation expenditure and also for additional damages. 2. The Respondents 1 & 2 have not appeared even inspite of service of the notice from this Forum and hence they have placed Ex-parte vide order dt. 03-06-10. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked one document at Ex.P-1. 4. Heard the arguments of the complainant side and perused the record. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents in not settling his claim, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that the complainant is the customer of Respondent No-2 Vodafone Sim Card bearing Cell No. 9620112744 and he has recharged his cell with currency of Rs. 122/- on 19-04-10 from Respondent No-1 Vodafone No. 9980130517 vide document Ex.P-1, but the said currency amount was neither debited to the mobile phone of the complainant nor the amount was refunded to the complainant or settled his claim by the Respondents. 7. The complainant in order to prove his case of approaching to the Respondent No-1 for payment of amount or to recharge his mobile phone sim card No. 9980130517 with the Respondent No-1 phone bearing No. 9980130517 has produced letter issued by the Respondent No-1 at Ex.P-1. On close perusal of Ex.P-1, it is very much clear that, the Respondent No-1 is the agent of Respondent NO-2 Vodafone Company who is running Raghavendra General Store at Arab Mohalla, Circle and he has accepted the offer of the complainant for to recharge the Cell Phone of the complainant for an amount of Rs. 122/- and accordingly he has recharged the same with his cell phone bearing No. 9980130517 on 19-04-10 as contended by the complainant in his complaint. 8. The complainant in order to prove his case, he has filed affidavit-evidence of his own and narrated all the facts in it. Even inspite of service of the notices neither the Respondent No-1 nor the Respondent No-2 appeared before this Forum and denied the allegations of complainant. In the absence of rebuttal evidence by the Respondents the evidence of the complainant cannot be discarded or rejected without proper grounds. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that, the claim of the complainant is genuine one and the act of the Respondent is illegal and uncalled for. Non settlement of the claim of the complainant by the Respondent is no doubt a case of deficiency in service on their part as contended by the complainant in his complaint. The pleadings of the complainant case are corroborated by his affidavit-evidence. Hence we answered point No-1 in affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 9. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest, towards loss of business dealings and damages along with cost of the litigation etc., In order to prove his case, the complainant has produced only one document under Ex.P-1. On perusal of Ex.P-1 and his pleadings it is very clear that, the complainant has offered recharge with the Respondent No-1 only to the tune of Rs. 122/-. Apart from that no other documents are filed before this Forum to show that, he has suffered loss in his business to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. Under such circumstances, the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- cannot be accepted as it is excessive and exorbitant one. Hence we came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to claim to the tune of Rs. 122/- which is the amount he paid for to recharge his cell phone to the Respondent No-1, 10. We have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents, as such we have granted an amount of Rs. 3,000/- recoverable by the complainant from the Respondents under the head of deficiency in service, As regards to the cost of litigation is concerned, the complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation 11. In view of our finding on Point Nos.1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost against Respondents. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 5,122/- from the Respondents jointly and severally. The Respondents have to comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 21-06-10.) Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.