FA.No.1186/2008 against CC.No.336/2008 District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad.

Between:

M/

K.L.K.Estate, Fathemaidan ,Hyderabad,

Rep. by its GPA holder and authorized signatory,

B.Arun Aged about 34 years,

…Appellant/And

Srikanth S/

Occ: Advocate, Aged about 33 years,

R/o.304, Pattabhi Towers,

Opp.Saptagiri Theatre,

RTC X Roads, Hyderabad – 500 020.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant        :  Counsel for the Respondent    :   

QUORUM:  THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA

AND

SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order (Per

*******

1.         The opposite party preferred this appeal against the order of the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad, dated 30.06.2008 in CC.No.336/2008 directing it to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- besides costs of Rs.1,000/-.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an advocate by profession and he has obtained mobile facility from the opposite party, Idea Cellular Ltd.  When he   It was informed that such a facility was provided.  However, without intimating him it was de-activated on 30.04.2006 when he reached Salem in Tamil   Since he was an advocate and in view of the non-providing facility he could not receive important calls and had sustained loss.    He also issued legal notice on 03.05.2006, which the appellant had received but did not give any reply.   Therefore, he claimed Rs.1

3.         Despite the fact that notice was served, the opposite party, the appellant  did not choose to contest the matter.

4.         The complainant filed his affidavit and documents, Exs.A.1 to A.20.  Ex.A.12 is the legal notice. Ex.A.15 is the acknowledgement receipt. Ex.A.16 to  show that he visited those places. Ex.A.20    

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the opposite party did not choose to contest nor controvert the facts mentioned in the complaint, besides it did not choose to give even reply to the notice issued by the complainant.  Considering the period for which the complainant had suffered due to non-availability of phone facility an amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards compensation, besides costs of Rs.1,000/-. 

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal contending that there was no deficiency in service.  It has activated the phone with roaming facility. Since the complainant had traveled in no net work area and/or difficult terrain area or encountered with technical problems of network, he could not get the calls.  There is no deliberate or negligent action on their part.  The compensation awarded is disproportionate, and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.    

7.         It is an undisputed fact that the complainant is an advocate having mobile phone facility with the appellant.  Since he intended to go to Tamil   Accordingly, the facility was given.  Unfortunately, he did not receive any calls nor he could send any calls to his native place.  He had suffered not only deficiency in service but also his own practice. 

8.         The appellant admitted having given roaming facility to the complainant at his  when he intended to go to Tamil   The contention of the appellant was that since the complainant had traveled in no net work area and/or difficult terrain area, he could not get the calls.  The appellant ought to have informed him even by way of SMS that since there was no facility provided to the places where the complainant visited, he could not get the roaming facility.   In other words,   Obviously, the complainant having made to believe that such a roaming facility would be provided to him, stick on to the appellant’s service.  However, he could not get it.  The fact of not informing that there was no roaming facility for the places he visited would itself constitute deficiency of service.  At least it could have given reply informing the reasons as to why it could not provide the facility.  This shows the scant respect towards the customer.  Naturally adverse inference has to be drawn for non giving reply.  While extending the facility, the appellant ought to have informed the complainant that the facility would not be extended to the areas where the complainant had visited.  In their anxiety to retain the services, the appellant must have made such a promise, which it was aware, cannot adhere.  Taking roaming facility is not for fancy.  The complainant would naturally be anxious to know from his relatives and friends as to some important information.  That was denied.  He must have felt severe mental agony.  The very purpose of taking the facility is defeated.  We do not see   We do not see any merits in the appeal. 

9.         In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  No costs.   

PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER               MALE MEMBER

Dt