BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.39/2015

Dated this the  11^th  day of December 2015.

Louis Gilbert Aroquiassamy @ Samicannou 

Son of Louis Joseph Aroquiassamy

No.39 and 40, 2^nd Floor, Singapore Avenue

Muthyrayarpalayam Road    

Moolakulam, Puducherry – 605 010.

                                                            ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. TATA Teleservices Limited

    283-284, 13^th Floor                  

    Prince Infocity

    2, Radjiv Gandhi Salai

    Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 096.

2. TATA Docomo

    127, Natesan Towers

    Nadesan Nagar

    100 Feet Road,

    Puducherry – 605 005.

….       Opposite parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT                      :  Party-in-Person

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:          :  Exparte

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 (1) (A) and 13 (1) and (2) r/w 14 (C) and (D) and (f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to:

1. Direct the opposite party No.1 and his representative to restore the landline connection with the same phone number (6542739);
2. Direct the Opposite Party No.1 and his representative to refund Rs.450/- for half compensation of purchase of a brand new handset;
3. Direct the Opposite Party No.1 and his representative to issue postpaid itemized bills on monthly basis free of charge shet by email to the following complainant's email address:
4. Direct the Opposite Party No.1 and his representative to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards phyusical and mental sufferings and agony caused to the complainant and his family;
5. Direct the Opposite Party No.1 and his representative to pay Rs.5000/-
6. for costs of the complaint and other reliefs.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant is a customer of first Opposite Party from October 2007 and the first Opposite Party has provided a Tata WS-Walky Life phone set, free of charge for use to the complainant,  together with a landline connection number 6542739 and an account number 208457257 through its representative TATA Docomo, second Opposite Party herein.  The complainant and the first Opposite Party jointly signed a contract as usually signed between Customer and Service provider but a copy of the contract have not been handed over to the complainant at the time of signature of the contract. The complainant requested a copy of the contract with terms and conditions on 7.1.2015 by a registered letter, but the first Opposite Party did not reply for the same.  On 11.06.2013 the complainant sent a registered letter to the first Opposite Party stating that the usage of the phone connection is not corresponding to the post paid bills sent to him on monthly basis and the bill amount was excess than the complainant made calls and requested explanation and rectification and also asked to send itemized bills, by email, on regular basis and issue bills corresponding to the usage and not bills with irregular content and also requested not to interrupt the phone connection.  From February 2014 onwards, the phone connection has been interrupted without any prior notice and the first Opposite Party also not replied for the letter sent.   It is stated by the complainant that he has paid Rs.1000/- as security deposit with the first Opposite Party.  Since the bill amount dated 22.10.2013 have been artificially inflated upto Rs.998/- the security deposit has been grabbed by the Opposite Party No.1,  It is further stated by the complainant that he had given a complaint regarding the breakdown of the initial handset which has been given to him at the beginning of the service together with landline connection.  Unable to repair the handset for technical reason, the first Opposite Party offered the complainant to replace and purchase another handset namely Tata Walky, Huawei – F203 model for Rs.999/-.  Since the handset belongs to opposite Party, it has to be replaced with free of cost, however, the first Opposite Party offered half of the price to be paid by the complainant immediately and the balance amount should be deducted from the forthcoming monthly usage postpaid bills which the complainant agreed and purchased the new handset.  But, the adjustment has never occurred and the fake calls billing have never been withdrawn.  Thus the complainant has lost security amount as well as new handset amount totally to a sum of Rs.1,999/-.  The first Opposite Party is present in Pondicherry through his representative, second Opposite Party.  The complainant sent a legal notice on 10.04.2015 to the second Opposite Party, though it was received, no replay was sent by the second Opposite Party.  Hence, this complaint.

3.         The opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte.

4.         On the side of the complainant, he has chosen to examine himself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C9.

5.   Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.  Point No.1:

            The complainant has got a landline connection from the first Opposite Party from October 2007 bearing No. 6542739 with Tariff Plan Ws-New Walky Life Plan.  Ex.C9 is the copy of bill for the period from 20.09.2013 to 19.10.2013.   Hence, the complainant is the consumer to the Opposite Parties.

7.         Point No.2:

            The complainant examined as CW1 and marked Exs.C1 to C9.  The Opposite Parties were duly served, but called absent and set ex parte.  The complainant submits that he has a landline connection from the Opposite Parties and the first Opposite Party is a service provider.  It is stated by the complainant that the usage of phone connection is not corresponding to the post paid bills sent to him on monthly basis.  The bills amounts are higher to the usage of some phone calls are not made by him and the phone numbers are unknown to him.  Since the amount claimed for the calls made by the complainant being on higher side, the complainant requested the Opposite parties to provide itemized bill details and the same was furnished by the opposite parties vide Ex.C5 annexure.  Since the complainant has found some calls have been made to unknown numbers, he had requested to remove the excess amount from the bills from 1.7.2012 to 19.03.2013 vide Ex.C5.  It is alleged by the complainant that he has paid a security amount of Rs.1000/- at the time of getting the connection.  Since the bill amount, dated 22.10.2013 has been artificially inflated upto Rs.998/- the first opposite party has grabbed the said amount from the security amount and also his phone connection has been interrupted.    It is the further allegation of the complainant that the handset given by the first Opposite party at the time of getting the land line connection got repair due to technical reasons, a new hand sent was offered by the first Opposite Party by paying half of the amount initially by the complainant and the balance amount will be deducted from the forthcoming postpaid bills.  In good faith, the complainant purchased a new hand set namely Tata Walky Huawei – F203 model for Rs.999/- vide Ex.C9 instead of replace of new one by free of cost.  But, the adjustment of the remaining amount was made in the subsequent bills and also the fake calls amount was not withdrawn.  In this regard, the complainant issued a notice dated 10.04.2015 to the second Opposite Party vide Ex.C1 which was acknowledged by the second Opposite Party vide Ex.C2.   It is also alleged by the complainant that he sent a letter dated 05.01.2015 Ex.C3 requesting the Opposite Party No.1 to give the copy of his contract with them which was acknowledged by first Opposite Party vide Ex.C4.  But, there was no reply for both the letters.  On the contrary, the security amount was deducted for the unpaid bills and also his phone was also disconnected.  Hence, the complainant came to this Forum with this complaint.

8.         From the above facts and evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear from Ex.C8 that the complainant got a landline connection with the Opposite Parties as per Tariff Plan We-New Walky Life Plan.     Further, on perusal of Ex.C8, the copy of the bill for the period from 20.09.2013 to 19.10.2013 an amount of Rs.998/- has been billed for which the complainant has objected vide Ex.C5 alleging that some fake calls have been made from his number and the said calls and its number were unknown to the complainant.  The complainant also requested to rectify the same, but the opposite parties failed to do so.  It is the further allegation of the complainant that the instruction which was given by the Opposite Parties at the time of getting landline connection had developed many defects which could not be rectified by the opposite parties and therefore, the complainant was offered with a new instrument for an amount of Rs.999/- by making half of the amount initially and the remaining amounts will be deducted from the forthcoming bills.  Despite the same was not adjusted by the opposite parties, they have deducted the security amount of Rs.1000/- paid by the complainant at the time of getting landline connection and also his phone was disconnected which made the complainant to suffer loss and injury.  Further, on perusal of available materials in this case, even though the complainant has sent registered letters calling upon the opposite parties to give his copy of contract made between them and to deduct the amount charged for the unused calls and the adjustment of balance of new instruments cost vide Ex.C5, the opposite parties neither replied for the same nor redressed the grievance of the complainant.  Further, the Opposite Parties, though received summons from this Forum, not come forward to put forth their contentions.  The attitude of the Opposite Parties clearly establishes the complainant's case and hence, this forum has come to the conclusion that the Complainant has proved the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties.  Thus, the complainant is entitled for the claim and Opposite Parties are liable for their negligent act leads to loss and injury to the complainant.

9.         Point No.3:

            In view of the decision taken in point No.2, this complaint is hereby allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to 

1. Restore the land line  connection to the complainant with the same phone number; 
2. Return the amount of Rs.450/- towards half the price of new handset purchased by the complainant;
3. To issue postpaid itemized bills on monthly basis free of charge
4. To pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- being compensation for the loss and injuries caused to the complainant
5. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.

The above said order should be complied within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

Dated this the 11^th day of December 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  

CW.1              07.08.2015                Louis Gilbert Aroquiassamy @ Samicannou

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  Nil

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS: Nil

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

     MEMBER