BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 28th day of September, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri.Vijay Kumar, B.Com.L.L.B., President, 2. Sri.K.V. Kaladhar, B.Sc., B.L., Member 3. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member C.C.No.105/2009 Between: Patibandla Ashok Kumar, s/o.late Radha Krishna, age:48 years, occu: Teacher, r/o.Bank colony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. Complainant and TATA Tele Services Ltd., V Floor, Khan Latheef Khan Estate, Fathemaidan, Hyderabad. Opposite party This C.C. came before us for hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Nagesh Babu, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri.A.Ravindra, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:- ORDER (Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member) 1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased one SIM card vide serial No.141300320149493 from Sri Sai Mobile Shop, Yellandu x road, Khammam by attracting the publicity given by the opposite party with regard to pay per call scheme and for which he paid Rs.99/- and obtained the connection on 11-09-2009. He had also paid Rs.100/- for recharge coupon and Rs.96/- for migration charges. The complainant also submitted that he had followed all the procedure. The opposite party failed to provide outgoing calls facility to the complainant. Therefore, approached the customer care center and informed the same but they suggested to purchase a new mobile phone for getting connection activated, but there is no such announcement from the opposite party and even in spite of repeated rounds to the customer care center, the opposite party did not redress his grievance, it amounts to deficiency of service and approached the Forum by praying to direct the opposite party to provide pay per call facility to the complainant and to pay Rs.5000/- towards damages and costs. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed the following documents, which were marked as Exhibits. Ex.A1:- Cash bill dated 11-09-2009, issued by Sri Sai Mobile Shop. Ex.A2:- Cover of the SIM Card. Ex.A3:- Instructions and conditions On receipt of notice, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed counter by denying the averments made in the complaint. In the counter, the opposite party submitted that the complainant had approached the opposite party for obtaining the prepaid connection and denied the other averments that the personnel of customer care center never informed to purchase a new mobile for activation of connection and also submitted that the complainant never made any complaint as alleged and as such there is no cause of action arose for the present complaint and there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint. In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? It is the case of the complainant that he purchased TATA Indicom SIM Card vide No.141300320149493 from Sri Sai Mobile Shop on 11-09-2009 and for obtaining pre paid mobile connection, he had also paid Rs.100/- for recharge and Rs.96/- for migration card, which is evidenced under Ex.A1. The opposite party had given mobile connection on the same day but failed to provide outgoing facility inspite of all procedure completed by the complainant and as such the complainant approached the customer care center many a times. However, the opposite party neither redressed his grievance nor provided proper services to its customer till the date of complaint i.e. even after completion of 1 ½ month from the date of purchase and even after filing the complaint, the opposite party had failed to provide its services as assured, definitely it amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and as such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to provide pay per call facility to the complainant as assured and also directing to pay Rs.100/- towards damages and Rs.500/- towards costs. Typed my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 28th day of September, 2010. President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for complainant: -None- Witnesses examined for opposite party: -None- Exhibits marked for complainant: Ex.A1:- Cash bill dated 11-09-2009, issued by Sri Sai Mobile Shop. Ex.A2:- Cover of the SIM Card. Ex.A3:- Instructions and conditions Exhibits marked for opposite party: -Nil- President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
