Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/64/2015

M/s.Ranganathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/s. Tata Tele Service Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N.Vanaraj

19 Apr 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  25.03.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  19.04.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE 19^th  DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

C.C.NO.64/2015

 

 

Ranganathan(62 years),

S/o Nagarajan,

Proprietor, M/s Abayam Translation Services,

Having office and residence at:

15/58, Vellala Street, 3^rd Lane,

Purasawalkkam, Chennai – 600 084.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1.The Manager,

M/s.Tata Tele Services Limited,

13^th Floor, Prince Info City II,

283/284, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,

Kandanchavadi,

Chennai – 600 096.

 

2.The Manager,

M/s. Tata Tele Services Ltd.,

2A, Old Ishwar Nagar,

Main Madura Road,

New Delhi – 110 065.

 

 

3. The Manager,

M/s. Tata  Docomo Store,

123/124, “Arihant Vaikund Complex”,

Bricklin Road,Purasawalkam,

Chennai – 600 007.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 16.04.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.N.Vanaraj & S.P.Yuvankumar

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : M/s.Shivakumar and Suresh

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is running a concern in the name and style of M/s. Abayam Translation Services mainly catering in translation business for national and international clients from various countries.  He had given contact number 9380656485 for all his business clients.  During last week of March 2014 he had visited the 3^rd Opposite Party and submitted an application to change his post paid plan to prepaid plan for his mobile connection number 9380656485.  The Opposite Parties instead  of converting to postpaid plan, they have deactivated the connection from 1.4.2014.  The Complainant also paid the outstanding dues.  However, he has received a post paid bill for the month of March/April 2014.  The Complainant paid all dues on 29.4.2014 and insisted the 3^rd Opposite Party to change the plan from postpaid to prepaid and he also submitted a fresh application as requested by them.  The Opposite Parties took 6 months time and effected plan only on 4.10.2014.  During this period the Complainant suffered loss to an extent of  2 lakhs per month and totally Rs.12 Lakhs.  Hence the complainant filed this Complainant filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs towards compensation for deficiency in service with cost of the Complainant. 

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is running a concern in the name and style of
M/s. Abayam Translation Services mainly catering in translation business for national and international clients from various countries and he had given contact number 9380656485 for all his business clients which clearly proves that he had availed the services from the Opposite Parties for the commercial purpose and therefore the complaint is not maintainable.   On 23.09.2014 the Complainant requested the opposite parties for changing his plan of postpaid to prepaid vide request no 43428099, the Opposite Parties accepted the requisition of Complainant and migrated postpaid service to prepaid service on 1.10.2014,and at the time of migration the Opposite Party waived the outstanding due, it is further submitted that the Opposite Parties waived the outstanding due of Rs.1118/- vide reference no 435280991, 435248319, 435232715 for the period of May to October 2014 for goodwill gesture and for minimum usage. It is false that the Complainant visited to the showroom at Purasaiwakkam and requested to change his plan of postpaid to prepaid, the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is true to state that the Opposite Parties sent the bill for the month of March-April 2014 to the complainant and he had paid the outstanding due on 29^th April 2014.  It is submitted that he had availed and used the services of the Opposite Parties and it is the duty of the complainant to make the payment for the month of March-April 2014.   The Opposite Parties further submitted that the service has not been disconnected during the period of April to September 2014 and moreover he had utilized the services and therefore he is liable to pay the charges as fixed by the Opposite Parties.       It is submitted that the migration from postpaid to prepaid was done in October 2014 and on 1.10.2014 the Opposite Parties migrated the plan of postpaid to prepaid vide request no 434288099.  It is further submitted that it is false to state that his request No.435248319 is processed. In view of the various facts discussed hereinabove and on a plain reading of the admitted facts, there is no deficiency in service whatsoever and there is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with Costs.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

           1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer?

          2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
               parties?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant is running a concern in the name and style of M/s. Abayam Translation Services mainly catering in translation business for national and international clients from various countries and he gave his Mobile No 9380656485 for all his business clients and the Opposite Parties are the service provider for the above said complainant’s mobile number and the Complainant paid all the dues till the month of March/April 2014  on 29.4.2014 and at request of complainant the post paid plan of the Complainant was changed to prepaid plan with effect from 04.10.2014.

          5. Admittedly the Complainant has used his mobile service for his business purpose and he also shared his mobile number to his clients.  The Opposite Parties contended that since the Complainant used his mobile for his business purpose to earn profit, he cannot be regarded as a consumer.  The Complainant also pleaded in his complaint due to deactivation of his mobile service, he suffered a monetary loss of Rs. 2 Lakhs per month and Rs. 12 Lakhs for six months.  Such statement of the Complainant clearly establishes that the Complainant used his mobile service only for his business purpose to earn profit and therefore, it is held that the Complainant cannot be considered as a consumer.

06. POINT NO:2

          The Complainant contended that he submitted an application to the 3^rd Opposite Party during last week of March 2014 to change his post paid plan to prepaid plan of his mobile connection and however the Complainant received bill for the month of March /April 2014 and that the said bill amount also paid by him on 29.04.2014 and again requested the 3^rd Opposite Party to migrate his mobile connection and however at request of 3^rd Opposite Party again he gave a fresh set of application for changing the plan and however they have deactivated his connection and only after 6 months they have changed from postpaid plan to prepaid plan with effect from 04.10.2014 and in between 6 months he sustained loss of 12 Lakhs as he could not contact his clients and therefore the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service.   However the Opposite Parties filed Ex.B1- bill pertaining to the Complainant mobile number 9380656485 and the same was used by him during the period April 2014 to October 2014.  Since the Complainant used the mobile connection during the above period till conversion of prepaid plan that the Complainant sustained a loss of Rs.12 Laksh is not accepted.  Therefore, we hold that the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service to the Complainant. 

07. POINT NO:3

          Since the Opposite Parties have not committed deficiency in service and it is also decided above that the Complainant is not a consumer, he is not entitled for any relief from the Opposite Parties and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No Costs.  

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 19^th day of April 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 27.05.2014                   Copy of Bill

Ex.A2 dated 29.06.2014                   Copy of e-mail sent by Complainant

Ex.A3 dated 30.06.2014                   Copy of e-mail sent by Complainant

Ex.A4 dated 05.07.2014                   Copy of e-mail sent by Complainant

Ex.A5 dated 10.07.2014                   Copy of e-mail sent by Opposite Party

Ex.A6 dated 10.07.2014                   Copy of e-mail sent by Complainant

Ex.A7 dated 12.07.2014                   Copy of e-mail sent by Opposite Party

Ex.A8 dated 28.07.2014                   Copy of e-mail sent by Complainant

Ex.A9 dated 10.08.2014                   Copy of e-mail sent by Opposite Party

Ex.A10 dated 08.10.2014                 Copy of e-mail sent by Complainant

Ex.A11 dated 27.10.2014                 Copy of Bill        

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated 27.04.2014                   The details of the bills for the period of April 2014

                                                     to October  2014

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT