BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

10^th DAY OF MARCH 2016

O R D E R

SMT. SHANTHA P.K, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) to provide the network and services to the same number of complainant and to compensate Rs.80,000/- and damages caused to him.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The OP has issued the sim card No.89910342110459200356 (Phone No.9886643897) to the complainant but has registered the same on some other sim card.  The OP approached the complainant to port from Vodafone to Tata Docomo to their network saying that, they would provide better service than what the complainant was having.  The complainant has purchased the sim card from OP and paid Rs.50/- for the sim and the OP have taken sufficient information with documents and they did not register and did not respond at all.  The complainant has been un-subscribed by the previous network (Vodafone) which he was using.  In spite of several calls to the OP again and again they have not taken any action and not responding to any of the calls and not providing any service.

The complainant’s number has not been subscribed to any network and he is not having any communication to any one as he is not having any network provided to his number.  The complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss.  The complainant has missed many admissions to his Institute and all his personal bank accounts are attached to this number and he is unable to trace his transactions.  The complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OP.   

For the aforesaid reasons, complainant prays for directing OP to provide the network and services to the complainant number and to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- and damages.   

3. The notice of complaint was issued to the OP and despite service of notice, OP failed to appear and contest the complaint and has been placed ex-parte.  Thereafter, the complainant filed his affidavit by way of evidence.

4. Perused the averments made in the complaint, affidavit filed in lieu of evidence and document filed by the complainant.

5. The OP has given the complainant a sim card No.89910342110459200356 to his phone No.9886643897 but the OP registered on some other sim card and as such the complainant requested the OP orally to solve the issue.  The OP assured that, it is a sim card problem hence they will provide a duplicate sim card.  But they told the complainant to come to their shop.  The complainant has spoken to Tata Docomo customer care about the problem.  But they told that the problem has to be addressed by OP with repeated request, there was no response from OP. 

6. OP themselves approached the complainant to port from Vodafone to Tata Docomo to their Network that they would provide better services than what the complainant was having.  The complainant having purchased the sim card from OP by paying Rs.50/-.  Even though the OP has taken sufficient information and documents they did not register and did not respond to the complainant.  The complainant also have been un-subscribed by the previous network in which he was using.  At this stage, the OP did not respond to any of the calls and also not provide any services to the complainant though the complainant called the OP many times.

7. The complainant has faced great financial loss since his number not been subscribed to any network and he is not having any network provided to his number.  All his personal Bank accounts are attached to this number and have missed many admissions to his institution because he is unable to trace of his transactions.  This thing disturbed him a lot and created more problems.  The OP has done deficiency by registering the sim card on some other sim card when the complainant requested the OP to solve the issue they assured that, they will provide a duplicate sim card.  After that, there was no response from OP. 

8. The complainant having paid a sum of Rs.50/- for purchasing the sim card, he is unable to use and enjoy the same.  The problems in the network and services could not be resolved by the OP.  Therefore, it is evident that there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Due to the irresponsible behavior on the part of OP, the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony.  The conduct of the OP in not providing the network and services to the complainant mobile number as agreed and not registering the same to some other sim card amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service on their part.  The complainant suffered inconvenience and mental agony due to non performance of the promise made by the OP.  The complainant was unable to make use of the sim card and this has been put him to great hardship and inconvenience.  Certainly he must have suffered mental agony and financial loss because of not providing the network and services after its purchase.  The OP did not appear and contest the claim of the complainant.  We do not find any reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation for the hardship and mental agony suffered by him.  We are satisfied that the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of OP.  In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service, mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. 

9. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

       O R D E R

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part.  OP is directed to provide network and service immediately and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. 

OP shall comply the order passed by this Forum within a month from today.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 10^th day of March 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

COMPLAINT No.1950/2015

Complainant                 -        Sri.Rajendra Prasad,

Bangalore-560 064.

                                          -vs-

Opposite Party              -        S.L.N Tele Services,

Bangalore.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 04.02.2016.

1. Sri.Rajendra Prasad,

   Witnesses examined on behalf of OP – Nil.

   Documents produced by the OP - Nil

MEMBER                           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln*