Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/628/2014

Sh. Raman Awasthi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Docomo - Opp.Party(s)

In person

26 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/628/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	17/09/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	26/03/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Raman Awasthi S/o Sh. S.D. Awasthi, R/o H.No.454, Sector 16, Panchkula.

              …..Complainant

Vs

 

[1] Tata Docomo, Circle Office, C-125, Industrial Area, Phase-8, Mohali, through its Manager.

 

[2] Tata Docomo having office at SCO 857, N.A.C. Manimajra, Near Meena Bazar, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

 …. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SH.P.L. AHUJA        PRESIDENT

           MRS.SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

 

Present:      Complainant in person.

            Sh. Mandeep Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

1.      The epigrammatic facts of the case are that the Complainant had taken a Docomo post-paid mobile connection number 9041049567 for his son, namely Mr.Rushil Awasthi, under monthly rental scheme of Rs.222/- with Rs.49/- as SMS pack. Consequent upon the admission of his son in BITS Pilani, Goa, the Complainant obtained a fresh VODAPHONE mobile connection for him, at Goa, as there was no signal of Tata Docomo in BITS Pilani, Goa Campus. Accordingly, a request dated 4.8.2014, for closure of the aforesaid number, was given by the Complainant to the executive of the Opposite Parties, upon which he was informed that being a Corporate Connection, it would be difficult to get it closed as such and asked the Complainant to get it migrated from post-paid to pre-paid. On 5.8.2014, the Complainant received a call from Retention Department, confirming that his request for closure of post-paid number has been forwarded and it would be converted into pre-paid number within 72 hrs. for which no document was required. However, when uptil 15.8.2014, nothing could be done by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant again took up the matter with the Customer Care Executive of the Opposite Parties, upon which he was assured that needful would be done within 48 hours. When the number was not closed in next 48 hours, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties through e-mail dated 19.8.2014 and requested them to close his other 04 numbers also due to their poor services, to intimate the outstanding amounts and the procedure for porting of numbers. Thereafter, vide e-mail dated 20.8.2014, the Complainant was asked to pay outstanding amount of Rs.971/- and to submit a recent photograph, ID proof and residence proof in nearest office. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.971/- was paid by the Complainant on 27.8.2014 at Sector 9, Chandigarh office of the Opposite Parties along with documents (a photograph, ID card issued by LIC and Driving License issued by the Haryana Govt.), but with a view to avoid cancellation of aforesaid post-paid connection, the Executive of Opposite Parties, returned the same on the ground that since the said documents were not issued by the Govt. of India, the same were not acceptable in Chandigarh. Thereafter, the Complainant sent a number of e-mails to the Opposite Parties for closure of his connection, but to no avail as every time the same were reverted in a very irresponsible manner. The Complainant even sent a Complaint to TRAI on 29.8.2014 for necessary intervention, on the basis of which the Opposite Parties registered a fresh Complaint for delay in cancellation of connection and a 14 days date i.e. 12.9.2014 was given for resolution of the said e-mail. Despite this, the number in question was not disconnected till 12.9.2014 and a bill for Rs.305/- was sent to the Complainant for the period 10.8.2014 to 09.09.2014. As the Opposite Parties were delaying the matter without any reason & rhyme, just to harass the Complainant, he has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before this Forum, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case have pleaded that the Complainant gave migration from post-paid to pre-paid for del number 9041049567 which took time owing to technical issue and information about the same was duly given to him from time to time. However, by the time technical issue got resolved, the Complainant himself expressed his desire to disconnect the del. The Complainant was informed of the same vide e-mail dated 18.9.2014, however, he opted to file the present Complaint. Answering Opposite Parties have further pleaded that it was on Complainant’s request that services to the del were disconnected on 17.9.2014 and waiver of Rs.305/- was also posted to his account and confirmation about the same was given to Complainant vide e-mail dated 18.9.2014. Answering Opposite Parties have further pleaded that it was solely owing to technical issue beyond their control that the request could incurred delay in migration and could not be closed in time. Since owning to technical issue, earlier request of migration was not getting closed; hence a fresh request for migration was generated to close the issue and the same was informed to the Complainant vide e-mail dated 29.8.2014. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and have perused the record, along with the written arguments advanced by the Complainant and learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

 

7.      The case of the Complainant is that he requested the Opposite Parties to disconnect his post-paid number, which was delayed by the Opposite Parties, without any concrete reasons. As suggested by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant decided to migrate his post-paid connection to pre-paid one. As per the case of the Complainant, various telephonic communications and e-mails did not yield any result, till the date of filing of the present Complaint. During the procedure of migrating the connection from post-paid to pre-paid, instead of the Complainant’s request, the Opposite Parties issued bill (Annex.C-9) of an amount of Rs.305/- for the period 10.8.2014 to 9.9.2014 inspite of e-mail dated 4.8.2014 at page 21 of the Complaint with a request to disconnect the same.

 

8.      The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that on the Complainant’s request, their services were disconnected on 17.09.2014 and waiver amount of Rs.305/- was also posted to the Complainant’s account and the confirmation of the same was given to the Complainant vide e-mail dated 18.9.2014 (produced as additional evidence by the Complainant).

 

9.      It has been urged that there was some technical issue faced by the Opposite Parties which was beyond their control, therefore, the Complaint of the Complainant could not be entertained, well in time. It is admitted by the Opposite Parties that the second request of the Complainant for migration from post-paid to pre-paid for another number was concluded within three days. Furthermore, the Opposite Parties have asserted through e-mail dated 18.9.2014 that a strict action has been taken on the store representative based on Complainant’s feedback.

 

10.      A perusal of the file makes it clear that no doubt the services, as requested by the Complainant, were disconnected by the Opposite Parties on 17.9.2014 and waiver of an amount of Rs.305/- was also posted to the Complainant’s account, but it is very important to note that the present Complaint was filed by the Complainant on that very day only, after being harassed by the Opposite Parties for a period of more than a month. Pertinently, there is no cogent/ authentic proof regarding the technical issue faced by the Opposite Parties during the first request of the Complainant. It is very surprising that the second similar matter could be resolved by the Opposite Parties within a short span of three days only. As per e-mail dated 18.9.2014, a strict action was taken against some store representative of the Opposite Parties, due to his negligence, but the Opposite Parties have not produced any record of the same as to what kind of action has been taken by them. In this view of the matter, the act of issuing bill even after the request for cancellation of the connection, later the reversal of wrongly generated bill of Rs.305/- specifically after filing of the present Complaint, non-providing the evidence regarding the technical issue certainly prove deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, which caused immense physical and mental harassment to the Complainant.   

 

11.      For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the Complaint and the same is allowed against Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

 [a] To make payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant for deficiency in service, mental agony, and harassment;

 

[b]  To make payment of an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant towards litigation expenses.

 

 

12.      This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned above.

 

13.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

26^th March, 2015                                      

 

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER