Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/359/2014

M/s..N.G.Bhuvanesvari - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Customer Care manager, TATA Docomo Store - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.P.L.Narayanan

02 Mar 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 01.08.2014

                                                                                                                             Date of Order : 02.03.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

              DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

CC. NO.359 /2014

                                         FRIDAY THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH 2018                                              

Mrs. N.G.Bhuvanesvari,

Syndicate Residency,

B22 1^st Floor, No.36,

Dr. Thomas 1^st Street,

T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.                              .. Complainant

                                                            ..Vs..

1.  The Customer Care Manager,

TATA DOCOMO Store,

Suite No.5, No.147,

Sucons Sivagami Square,

T.Nagar,

Chennai 600 017.

 

2. The General Manager,

TATA Teleservices Limited,

Tamil Nadu Circle Office,

No.283 & 284, 6^th & 13^th Floor,

Prince Inforcity-II,

Rajiv Gandhi Salai,

Kandhanchavadi,

Chennai 600 096.    

 

3. The Chief Executive Officer,

TATA Teleservices Limited,

Tamil Nadu Circle Office,

No.283 & 284 6^th and 13^th Floor,

Prince Inforcity-II,

Rajiv Gandhi Salai,

Kandhanchavadi,

Chennai 600 096.                                       ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for complainant                :  M/s. P.L.Narayanan     

For opposite party-1                      :  Exparte

Counsel for opposite parties2 & 3 :  M/s. Shivakumar and Suresh       

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to refund a sum of Rs.1700/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony  & deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the compliant.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that she was using Tata Photo Data card bearing No.9244866275 for a long time and paid the bills regularly for which the Tariff plan was Rs.950/-.  On 5.12.2013 the complainant requested the opposite party to change the bill plan from Rs.950/- to Rs.450/- p.m.  The opposite parties also changed the bill plan and sent acknowledgment by SMS to the complainant ‘s mobile number.     Further the complainant state that she paid a sum of Rs.1180/- the bill for the month of December 2013.  On 5.12.2013 she  has not used the Data Card since the complainant was staying in Ramachandra Hospital, from 7.11.2013 to 7.2.2014  in order to look after her daughter who underwent heart surgery.   On 11.2.2014 the complainant paid the bill amount of Rs.1510/- for the month of January 2014.  Hence the complainant  approached the opposite parties customer care centre at G.N.Chetty road and enquired about the wrong bills.  But there was no response either by way of SMS or in person.   Further the complainant contended that at long lost an SMD came to email account No.909057916 and threatening by demand notice on 5.5.2014 to pay an amount of Rs.2746/ with interest at the rate of 2% p.m.    As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.   

2.     Inspite of service of notice the 1^st  opposite party called absent and set exparte. 

3. The brief averments in the written version filed by the 2^nd 3^rd opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  It is true that for Photon No.9244866275 the bill plan for the complaint was Rs.950/- p.m and on 5.12.2013 for plan change, the complainant had given the request only in the month of January 2014.  Accordingly the opposite parties changed the monthly plan from Rs.950/ to Rs.450/- p.m.   It is also false to state that an outstanding payment of Rs.1180/- was paid for December 2013 bill along with arrear payment.   Further the opposite parties state that the complainant used the data card 3285 MB for the period of 5.12.2013 to 4.1.2014.   It is false to state that the complainant was staying in Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Porur, Chennai from 7.11.2013 to 7.2.2014 looking after her daughter who underwent heart surgery, the complainant locked her house and there was nobody in her house to use the said data card and she is put to strict proof of the same.   The complainant used the services of the opposite parties promptly and failed to make payment for the reasons best known to her.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2  marked on the side of the  opposite parties.

5.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.1700/- collected by the opposite party in excess as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of Rs.3000/- as prayed for ?

6.  POINTS 1 & 2 :

        Heard Both sides.  Perused the records (viz.) complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is a customer of Tata Indicom Teleservices using the mobile and land line services for a long time without any default.   The complainant  used Tata Photo Data card bearing No.9244866275 for a long time and paid the bills regularly for which the Tariff plan was Rs.950/-.  On 5.12.2013 the complainant requested the opposite party to change the bill plan from Rs.950/- to Rs.450/- since the opposite parties gave an offer.  The opposite parties also changed the bill plan and sent acknowledgment by SMS to the complainant ‘s mobile number.   Ex.A1 is the bill for October and November 2013 with old traffic Rs.950/-.  Ex.A2 is the bill for November 2013.  Further the complainant contended that she paid a sum of Rs.1180/- the bill for the month of December 2013 as per Ex.A3 on 5.12.2013, she  has not used the Data Card since the complainant was in Ramachandra Hospital, from 7.11.2013 to 7.2.2014  in order to lookafter her daughter who underwent heart surgery.  But the complainant has not produced any record.   During that period the complainant locked her home and the data card was inside the house and the Data card was not used.  On 11.2.2014 the complainant paid the bill amount of Rs.1510/- for the month of January 2014.  Hence the complainant  approached the opposite parties customer care centre at G.N.Chetty road and enquired about the wrong bills.   But there was no response either by way of SMS or in person.   Further the complainant contended that at long lost an SMD came to email account No.909057916 and threatening by demand notice on 5.5.2014 to pay an amount of Rs.2746/                      with interest at the rate of 2% p.m.  Hence the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice Ex.A5, dated 24.3.2015 against the offer amount of Rs.450/- pm. 

7.    The contention of the opposite parties is that admittedly the complainant is a customer and the opposite parties is an Indian broadband a telecommunications service provider with its head office in Mumbai, Maharashtra.    The complainant has suppressed the material fact and filed this case.   But the opposite parties has not explained what are the suppression of the fact.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that for Photon No.9244866275 the bill plan for the complaint was Rs.950/- p.m and on 5.12.2013 for plan change, the complainant had given the request only in the month of January 2014. Accordingly the opposite parties changed the monthly plan from Rs.950/ to Rs.450/- p.m. But the opposite parties has not produced any record to show that the complainant made request only in the month of January 2014.  On the other hand it is very clear from the document and the complaint that immediately during the month of December ‘2013 itself the complainant requested to change plan tariff.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that payment of Rs.1180/- in December 2013 bill along with arrear payment is due but no record.   On a careful perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 for the month of October 2013 there is nothing about the outstanding amount.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant used the data card 3285 MB for the period of 5.12.2013 to 4.1.2014.   Similarly from 5.1.2014 to 4.2.2014 the complainant used 5836 data card for that also the opposite parties has not filed any record.  Therefore it is apparently clear that such huge usage of MB is unnatural on part of the complainant.   The opposite parties is duty bound to prove such huge usage of MB unnatural.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that demand notice dated 5.5.2014 to pay an amount of Rs.2746/- was issued.   But the complainant has not paid the amount.  Equally the allegation of threat is  absolutely false.   But on a careful perusal of the records it is very clear that the opposite parties has not complied the reduced rate of Rs.450/- as per tariff  has not announced properly.   Similarly, huge usage of MBS only for the month of January & February 2014 has not been explained.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.1250/- and also shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-  for mental agony with cost of Rs.3,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.  

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.1250/- (Rupees One thousand two hundred and fifty only) and also shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)  for mental agony with cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant.

         The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.       

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 2^nd  day of March 2018.

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1- 1.10.2013  - Copy of TATA Teleservices Ltd bill.

Ex.A2- 4.11.2013  - Copy of TATA Teleservices Ltd Bill.

Ex.A3- 4.1.2014    - Copy of TATA Teleservices Ltd Bill.

Ex.A4- 11.2.2014  - Copy of TATA Teleservices Ltd Bill.

Ex.A5- 24.3.2014  - Copy of complaint from complainant to opp. party.

Ex.A6- 23.4.2014  - Copy of letter to post office requesting A.D. Card.

Ex.A7- 5.5.2014    - Copy of demand notice.

Ex.A8- 16.5.2014  - Copy of proof of delivery letter.

Ex.A9- 12.7.2014  - Copy of complaints grievance letter

Ex.A10- 17.7.2014         - Copy of Postal AD card received from 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A11- 17.7.2014         - Copy of reply letter.

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1-             - Copy of details of the usage of the complainant.

Ex.B2-            - Copy of bill for the period of February 2014 to April 2014.

 

 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.