Date of Filing : 19.07.2011
Date of Order : 30.11.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 30th day of November 2011
PRESENT
Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO B.Sc.B.L. …. President
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 1325/2011
Sri.Omkar Mutha,
Department of dermatology,
Command Hospital, Air Force,
Banalore 560 007
(In person) ……. Complainant
V/s.
Tata Tele Services Ltd.,
No.8, Binnamangala Layout,
Near BDA Complex, Indira Nagar 1st stage,
Bangalore 23.
(By Advocate M/s Esskay Associates) …..Opposite Party
ORDER
(By the President Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO)
The brief antecedents that yet to be filing of the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to pay Rs.2,000/- and compensation are necessary.
1. On 06.05.2011 at 4.30 pm complainant and his friend went to the OP and purchased Docomo 3G internet modom for Rs.2000/- and Ravi the sale executive of the OP has stated that it has network coverage in the hospital and uninterrupted coverage throughout the Bangalore. When the complainant went to his hospital he found that there was no coverage. Hence immediately the complainant went to OP, asked him to pay back the money, the OP dragged the complainant. The complainant approached the OP several times. Each and every time OP went on postponing even the complainant was prepared to go to Delhi and collect the amount that was also objected. Hence the complaint seeking refund of the amount and compensation and cost.
2. The OP engaged the service of the advocate on 14.09.2011, but no version or no pleading was put nor affidavit was put, the complainant has filed its affidavit, heard the counsel of the OP and the complainant.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are
A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
B) What order ?
4. Our answers are:
A) Positive
B) As per the detailed order for the following
REASONS
5. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit and documents on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased Docomo 3G internet modom from the OP for Rs.1999/- on 06.05.2011, the OP had assured that by using this he will get network coverage in the hospital of the complainant and also through out Bangalore uninterruptedly. But on the very day the complainant put it and used it in hospital he found no coverage. Hence the complainant returned it to the OP on 07.07.2011 itself and requested him to return the money. Even then the OP went on dragging the complainant on one pretest or the other. Taking the money of one person and the service is not been given and money is not return is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence under these circumstances if we direct the OP to pay Rs.5000/- in all towards refund of the amount compensation and cost we think that will meet the ends of justice. Hence we hold the above points and pass the following:
ORDER
1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- within 30 days from the date of this order to the complainant.
3. Return the extra sets to the concerned parties as under regulation 20(3) of the consumer Protection Regulation 2005.
4. Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30th day of November 2011.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
