By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get refund the charges unauthorisely collected and to get cost and compensation for the unfair trade practice.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant is a consumer of opposite party's mobile SIM bearing No.9567892730 since years as pre-paid connection. While so on 22.11.2015, one message came in the mobile charging Rs.128.40/- for the duration 02.02.17. But the complainant not make any call for such a duration for the huge charge. So the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 at Sulthan Bathery and made a complaint before him. So he told that he can't do anything to solve the problem and gave the address of opposite party No.2. The complainant send a complaint to the opposite party No.2 on 26.11.2015 stating the above reason. The Opposite party No.2 rang up me and told that he will look into this matters and reply will be given soon. But till 14.12.2015, no reply has been received. So the complainant sent a reminder to Opposite party No.2 on 12.12.2015, for that letter also he did not give a reply but he replied through phone to contact Mr. Vineesh who in the Customer Service Manager, Bharath Air Tel Ltd. in his e-mail addressvinesh.gs@airtel.com. Then the complainant gave a complaint to Mr. Vineesh through his e0mail address. For that also no reply has been received so far. The charging of Rs.128.40/- by the Opposite parties for non use of mobile and not responding to the complaint and subsequent reminders is a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite parties .Hence the Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.128.40/- which is charged by the Opposite parties fraudulently and also liable to pay cost and compensate for the mental agony and hard ship caused to the complainant.
3. Notices were served to opposite parties and opposite party No.1 not appeared before the Forum. Hence opposite party No.1 declared ex-parte. Opposite party No.2 appeared and filed version stating that it is true that complainant is a consumer of opposite party having mobile SIM No. 9567892730, a prepaid connection. The allegation that on 22.11.2015 the complainant got a message of charging an amount of Rs.128.40/- from his account is totally and false hence denied. It is pertinent to mention that on 22.11.2015 no such amount is charged from the complainant. If so, the whole complaint fails and is only liable to be dismissed. The complainant has been charged only for the services he has availed and the answering opposite party has not charged any amount from the complainant otherwise. The allegation that the complainant sent a complaint to opposite party No.2 on 26.11.2015 is false, baseless and hence denied. The complainant has totally mislead this Hon'ble Forum from true and correct facts There has not been any instance of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.2.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 documents were marked. Ext.A1 is the written complaint regarding the issue to the opposite party No.1 dated 23.11.2015 wherein the call duration is shown as 02-02-17 call cost Rs.128.40/- Balance Rs.141.03/-. Ext.A2 is the written complaint regarding the issue to the opposite party No.2 dated 26.11.2015. Ext.A3 is the Reminder letter given to opposite party No.2 dated 15.12.2015. Ext.A4 is a written complaint to one Vineesh, as per the direction of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 has not adduced any oral evidence.
5. On considering the complaint, version, documents and evidences, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service from the part
of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
6. Point No.1:- The complaint and deposition of PW1 and the produced documents shows that there was some charging in his phone account without his knowledge and without making a call. Ext.A1 to A4 shows that soon after the incident the matter was reported to the opposite parties and they were not responded also. On a notice from the Forum also the opposite party No.1 has not turned up and not defended the case also. Hence we found that there is deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.1 for providing necessary assistance to the complainant for his grievances. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.
7. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite party No.1, he is liable to refund the charges which is collected illegally and also directed to pay a compensation and cost of the proceedings. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to refund Rs.128.40/- (Rupees One Hundred Twenty Eight and forty paise) to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16th day of August 2016.
Date of Filing: 16.02.2016.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. C. S. Mathekutty. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Written complaint. Dt:23.11.2015.
A2. Copy of Written complaint. Dt:26.11.2015.
A3. Copy of Reminder. Dt:15.12.2015.
A4. Copy of Written complaint. Dt:07.01.2016.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
