Tata Tele ServicesLimited V/S V.Rao Gulur - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/1205/08

V.Rao Gulur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Tele ServicesLimited - Opp.Party(s)

in person

26 Mar 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1205/08

V.Rao Gulur						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Tata Tele ServicesLimited						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 26th MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1205/2008 COMPLAINANT V. Rao Gulur, S/o. Gulur Seshagiri Rao (Late) Aged 70 years, Residing at Flat # T3, Plot # 33, Shravanthi Crescent Yelachanahalli, Bangalore 560 062. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. TATA Tele Services Ltd., Block A, Silicon Terraces, 30/1, Hosur Main Road, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 095. 2. TATA Telecom Services, G-1, Bharathi Towers One, 10th Floor, 124, Connaught Circle, New Delhi 110 001. Advocate (Krishnamurthy M.R.) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund an amount of Rs.3,200/- plus Rs.1,650/- along with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed the services of the OP by making payment of Rs.3,200/- and Rs.1,650/-. With all that since 2007 he was getting unwanted calls from the OP with regard to marketing junk products. For no fault of the complainant, he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. As and when he received the call he answered, thus he was made to pay the charges. Though he made repeated requests to OP to stop such kind of intrusion and nuisance, it went in vain. Complainant requested the OP to take back their equipment and refund whatever the amount he has paid. Though OP received and acknowledged the said request of the complainant, failed to respond. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. At the beginning this complaint is filed against OP.3 TRAI, later on complainant filed a Memo to delete OP.3. Hence OP.3 is deleted. 2. Though OP.1 and 2 were duly served with a notice, they remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP.1 and 2 does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP.1 and 2 are placed ex-parte. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP.1 and 2 did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. An Order came to be passed on 15th July 2008 allowing the complaint in part. 3. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, complainant preferred an Appeal No. 1844/2008 before the Honble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking enhancement of the compensation. OP appeared in the said Appeal, then the said Appeal came to be allowed vide order dated 17.12.2008 and matter is remitted back to this Forum to dispose of the matter afresh after affording opportunity to the litigating parties. In pursuance of the same OP appeared and filed the version. The defence set out by the OP in nutshell is as under. That the equipment is belonging to the complainant, hence the question of taking it back and pay the cost of Rs.3,200/- does not arise, the claim of Rs.1,650/- is also arbitrary. It is further contended that the connection taken by the complainant is a prepaid connection, if at all he does not want to continue OP service he can stop buying the currency and make request for disconnection of telephone. As per the Telecom Unsolicited Commercial Communication Regulations, a customer who does not want to receive any unsolicited commercial communication (UCC) may register his number in the National Do Not Call List, complainant has not done the same. Hence he cannot allege the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainant is using the said telephone connection even till today. As the complainant purchased the said instrument of his own choice, he cannot direct the OP to take it back and refund the cost. The other allegations made in the complaint with regard to the exorbitant claim of compensation are imaginary and baseless. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. It is the case of the complainant that he availed OP.1 and 2 tele service by making payment of Rs.3,200/- and Rs.1,650/-. OP.1 and 2 in order to carry out their illegal marketing warfare used to make repeated calls to the number held by the complainant. As and when he heard the ring tone he has replied it, for that for no fault of his, he was made to pay the call charges. Though he made repeated requests and demands to OP not to send such unwanted phone calls, it went in vain. Thus he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss due to the illegal intrusion and nuisance caused by the OP. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant not to disturb him in that way, went in futile. The correspondence made by the complainant and legal notice caused are produced. 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that the said instrument is purchased by the complainant which is of his choice and it is his own, so the question of OP taking it back and refund the cost of the instrument does not arise. We find substance in the said defence. It is further contended by the OP that the connection taken by the complainant is a prepaid connection, he has availed the said service since the year 2006, there were no such complaints earlier and if the complainant feels that it is not advisible to continue OP service he can stop buying the currency and make a request for disconnection. Again we find the substance in this defence also. If the complainant is not satisfied with the service extended by the OP, he can opt for disconnection and stop buying the currency. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant, we do not think that some prejudice is caused to him. 8. The main grievance of the complainant is that he was getting day in day out even including the peak hours, the unwanted calls just to promote their so called marketing of the junk products and that marketing warfare caused him nuisance. Complainant did make efforts in intimating the OP to stop making unwanted calls, it appears there was no response. To that extent the evidence of the complainant appears to be very natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony in that regard. Of course OP has come up with the defence that if the customer who does not want to receive unsolicited commercial communication (UCC) may register his number in National Do Not Call List. Now the burden is on the OP to show that such an instructions is given to the customer/ the consumer. Merely because it is noted in some regulations, it does not mean that each and every customer is in know of the said regulations. 9. Even before making such a junk calls, OP failed to notify that there is a remedy open to the consumer and the customer to stop it by registering their number in Do Not Call Register. But there is no such proof that such an intimation is given to the complainant. Hence for this simple reason we find complainant for no fault of his, is made to suffer both mental agony, financial loss as well nuisance, it must have affected his day today life. On the close scrutiny of the defence of the OP it has not disputed the fact of sending of such unsolicited commercial communications every now and then, that itself amounts to deficiency in service. When that is so, complainant is justified in claiming the damages and compensation. 10. With regard to the use of the said telephone till today and option being given to the complainant to stop buying currency, seek for disconnection, it is left to the discretion of the complainant. But as far as the mental agony and interference in the peaceful living is concerned, complainant deserves some compensation. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- appears to be exorbitant and unreasonable. As already observed by us, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- will meet the ends of justice along with litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP.1 and 2 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26th day of March 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 26th MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1205/2008 COMPLAINANT V. Rao Gulur, S/o. Gulur Seshagiri Rao (Late) Aged 70 years, Residing at Flat # T3, Plot # 33, Shravanthi Crescent Yelachanahalli, Bangalore 560 062. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. TATA Tele Services Ltd., Block A, Silicon Terraces, 30/1, Hosur Main Road, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 095. 2. TATA Telecom Services, G-1, Bharathi Towers One, 10th Floor, 124, Connaught Circle, New Delhi 110 001. Advocate (Krishnamurthy M.R.) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund an amount of Rs.3,200/- plus Rs.1,650/- along with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed the services of the OP by making payment of Rs.3,200/- and Rs.1,650/-. With all that since 2007 he was getting unwanted calls from the OP with regard to marketing junk products. For no fault of the complainant, he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. As and when he received the call he answered, thus he was made to pay the charges. Though he made repeated requests to OP to stop such kind of intrusion and nuisance, it went in vain. Complainant requested the OP to take back their equipment and refund whatever the amount he has paid. Though OP received and acknowledged the said request of the complainant, failed to respond. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. At the beginning this complaint is filed against OP.3 TRAI, later on complainant filed a Memo to delete OP.3. Hence OP.3 is deleted. 2. Though OP.1 and 2 were duly served with a notice, they remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP.1 and 2 does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP.1 and 2 are placed ex-parte. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP.1 and 2 did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. An Order came to be passed on 15th July 2008 allowing the complaint in part. 3. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, complainant preferred an Appeal No. 1844/2008 before the Honble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking enhancement of the compensation. OP appeared in the said Appeal, then the said Appeal came to be allowed vide order dated 17.12.2008 and matter is remitted back to this Forum to dispose of the matter afresh after affording opportunity to the litigating parties. In pursuance of the same OP appeared and filed the version. The defence set out by the OP in nutshell is as under. That the equipment is belonging to the complainant, hence the question of taking it back and pay the cost of Rs.3,200/- does not arise, the claim of Rs.1,650/- is also arbitrary. It is further contended that the connection taken by the complainant is a prepaid connection, if at all he does not want to continue OP service he can stop buying the currency and make request for disconnection of telephone. As per the Telecom Unsolicited Commercial Communication Regulations, a customer who does not want to receive any unsolicited commercial communication (UCC) may register his number in the National Do Not Call List, complainant has not done the same. Hence he cannot allege the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainant is using the said telephone connection even till today. As the complainant purchased the said instrument of his own choice, he cannot direct the OP to take it back and refund the cost. The other allegations made in the complaint with regard to the exorbitant claim of compensation are imaginary and baseless. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. It is the case of the complainant that he availed OP.1 and 2 tele service by making payment of Rs.3,200/- and Rs.1,650/-. OP.1 and 2 in order to carry out their illegal marketing warfare used to make repeated calls to the number held by the complainant. As and when he heard the ring tone he has replied it, for that for no fault of his, he was made to pay the call charges. Though he made repeated requests and demands to OP not to send such unwanted phone calls, it went in vain. Thus he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss due to the illegal intrusion and nuisance caused by the OP. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant not to disturb him in that way, went in futile. The correspondence made by the complainant and legal notice caused are produced. 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that the said instrument is purchased by the complainant which is of his choice and it is his own, so the question of OP taking it back and refund the cost of the instrument does not arise. We find substance in the said defence. It is further contended by the OP that the connection taken by the complainant is a prepaid connection, he has availed the said service since the year 2006, there were no such complaints earlier and if the complainant feels that it is not advisible to continue OP service he can stop buying the currency and make a request for disconnection. Again we find the substance in this defence also. If the complainant is not satisfied with the service extended by the OP, he can opt for disconnection and stop buying the currency. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant, we do not think that some prejudice is caused to him. 8. The main grievance of the complainant is that he was getting day in day out even including the peak hours, the unwanted calls just to promote their so called marketing of the junk products and that marketing warfare caused him nuisance. Complainant did make efforts in intimating the OP to stop making unwanted calls, it appears there was no response. To that extent the evidence of the complainant appears to be very natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony in that regard. Of course OP has come up with the defence that if the customer who does not want to receive unsolicited commercial communication (UCC) may register his number in National Do Not Call List. Now the burden is on the OP to show that such an instructions is given to the customer/ the consumer. Merely because it is noted in some regulations, it does not mean that each and every customer is in know of the said regulations. 9. Even before making such a junk calls, OP failed to notify that there is a remedy open to the consumer and the customer to stop it by registering their number in Do Not Call Register. But there is no such proof that such an intimation is given to the complainant. Hence for this simple reason we find complainant for no fault of his, is made to suffer both mental agony, financial loss as well nuisance, it must have affected his day today life. On the close scrutiny of the defence of the OP it has not disputed the fact of sending of such unsolicited commercial communications every now and then, that itself amounts to deficiency in service. When that is so, complainant is justified in claiming the damages and compensation. 10. With regard to the use of the said telephone till today and option being given to the complainant to stop buying currency, seek for disconnection, it is left to the discretion of the complainant. But as far as the mental agony and interference in the peaceful living is concerned, complainant deserves some compensation. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- appears to be exorbitant and unreasonable. As already observed by us, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- will meet the ends of justice along with litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP.1 and 2 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26th day of March 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.