<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.05.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> 19th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1224/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.N.Manohar,<br /> Aged about 41 years,<br /> S/o Late S.K.Nagesh Rao,<br /> Residing at No.16/56,<br /> Tagore Street, Udayanagar,<br /> Bangalore – 16.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate – Miss Vidya<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. TATA Tele Services Ltd.,<br /> Block ‘A’, Silicon Terraces,<br /> 30/1 Hosur Main Road,<br /> Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore – 560 095.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. TATA Telecom Services,<br /> G-1, Bharathi Towers one,<br /> 10th Floor, 124,<br /> Connaught Circle,<br /> New Delhi – 110 001.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.Swamy Shiva Prakash.H<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)<br /> Mahajanagar Doorsanchar Bhavan,<br /> (Next to Zakir Hussain College)<br /> Jawaharlal Nehru Marg.<br /> (Old Minto Road)<br /> New Delhi – 110002.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.Shivamallu<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a sum of Rs.2,950/- with interest and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant on September 17th 2007 availed the services of OP with regard to TATA INDICOM Plug to Surf Modem along with utility paraphernalia by paying Rs.2,950/-. But some how within a span of few days he noticed it didn’t perform well as expected. Immediately he contacted the OP and disclosed the said defect, but there was no response. On 15.04.2008 complainant made an offer to take back their modem which never performed as per the expectation of the complainant and refund the deposit made by him along with the interest and pay a compensation, but again it went in vain. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP.1 & 2 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. OP extends its service under CDMA technology. The amount paid by the complainant is not towards the service but towards the cost of the instrument. Complainant purchased V-Data card bearing No.924300754 and he is using the same. OP are expected to raise the bill. The first bill is dated 07.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.509/-, second bill is for Rs.168-54 total amount due is Rs.795/-. Due to the non payment of the said bill amount V-Data connection was disconnected from February 2008. Actually complainant has not made any request for disconnection. OP issued the notice to the complainant to pay the amount in due. As a counter blast complainant has now come up with this false and frivolous complaint. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP.1 & 2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> OP.3 filed a separate version mainly contending that complainant has not availed their service as contemplated under the Act. OP.3 being Telecom Regulatory Authority of India is a statutory body set up under the Act to regulate telecom service. In the instant case OP.3 is neither a seller of a goods nor a service provider. Hence OP.3 is not a necessary party. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP.3 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP have also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 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:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the services of the OP on 17.09.2007. According to the complainant he acquired TATA INDICOM Plug to Surf Modem along with utility paraphernalia. But to his utter shock and surprise he didn’t get the expected service from the said modem. For this contention basically there is no proof because complainant has not lead any experts evidence to show that the Modem and other utility paraphernalia supplied by the OP are having inherent manufacturing defect. So in absence of such basic proof the bare and vague allegations of the complainant in that regard rather can’t be believed.<br /> <br /> 7. It is further contended by the complainant that on 15.04.2008 he offered OP to take back their Modem and refund the cost that is nearly after 6 months. Why there is so much of delay is not known. As against this it is contended by the OP that the amount paid by the complainant is towards the purchase of the instrument. It is also contended by the OP that complainant purchased V-Data card connection. In pursuance of the use of the same he was in due of Rs.795/- for the month of October, November and December 2007. Though OP made demand of the said bill amount complainant failed to make payment of the same. Under the circumstances they were constrained to disconnect the said connection in the month of February 2008. To substantiate the same the correspondence made in that regard are produced by the OP. Not only that on 12.03.2008 OP sent notice to the complainant calling upon him to pay the amount in due, but it went in vain.<br /> <br /> 8. It is further contended by the OP.1 & 2 that at no point of time complainant made any request for disconnection of the same. Under the circumstances the present complaint filed by the complainant is a counter blast to the claim made by the OP. We find there is a substance in the defence set out by the OP. Complainant has not denied the fact of he being in due of Rs.795/- for the use of V-Data connection as contended by the OP. So when complainant himself is a defaulter he can’t allege the deficiency in service against the OP.<br /> <br /> 9. OP.3 has rightly contended that it is a statutory body set up for regulating the telecom service. As it is complainant has not availed the services of the OP.3 as contemplated nor OP.3 is a seller of any goods to the complainant. In our view no such cause of action aroused to the complainant to file complaint against OP.3. The allegations made against OP.3 are bald and baseless, as such OP.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (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 19th day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />