COMPLAINT FILED: 31.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 24th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2860/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Madhusudan Prabhu,<br /> No. 4, Alexander Street,<br /> Richmond Town,<br /> Bangalore – 560 025.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager-Customer Care,<br /> Spice Communication Ltd.,<br /> Spice Tower,<br /> No. 75, Richmond Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 025.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (B.C. Chetan)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<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 refund Rs.799/- collected towards sim card charges with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- 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 /> Complainant being lured away with the services promised by the OP subscribed for Spice Uth 799 plan on payment of Rs.799/- pertaining to his mobile No. 9444187423 in the month of April 2006. It was promised that complainant will get life time free incoming call under the said prepaid system. He left the said mobile at his native place Udupi, but the services of the OP was very bad, it is defective, congested not capable of handling minimum number of calls. In addition to that there was a lot of disturbance in the network, there used to be pre-recorded message every now and then, number is temporarily out of order, try later or number is not reachable, etc. For the last 2 ½ years complainant experiencing the difficulty in contacting his family members at Udupi through his cell phone, that too for no fault of his. He made several complaints to the OP, but there was no proper response. Hence he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP it has got lakhs of subscribers in Karnataka and no one complained with regard to the defect in the said service. As and when complainant made some complaints it was rectified. The network is working perfectly. The other allegations of the complainant are baseless. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Hence they are not liable to pay any compensation muchless refund the sim card charges. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP 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 has also filed the affidavit evidence. 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 the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs 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 Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<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 OP services under Spice Uth 799 plan on payment of Rs.799/- to his mobile No. 9844187423 in the month of April 2006. According to the complainant there was a defect in the said network of the OP, always it was congested, not capable of handling minimum number of calls, there used to be lot of disturbances in the network. As and when complainant made call from Bangalore to Udupi to contact his family members he used to get preloaded message, number is temporarily out of order, try later or number is not reachable, etc. He immediately contacted the OP and made several complaints. The correspondence made in that regard are produced. Complainant patiently waited for more than 2½ years with a fond hope that OP will solve the said problem, but all his hopes have become dupes. OP is bound to provide the subscribers satisfactory network connectivity. But here we find OP has failed in discharging its obligation. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP is that their service is of high standard and lakhs of subscribers in Karnataka enjoying their service without any complaint. To substantiate the same OP have not produced any relevant documents that during the course of the period alleged by the complainant their network was perfectly all right and functioning without any complaints. So in absence of proof in that regard, the bare and vague defence set out by the OP that their network is not suffering from any defect rather cannot be believed. <br /> <br /> 8. In another breathe OP takes up the defence that as and when complainant made some complaints it was rectified. That means to say there is a problem with the said network. Complainant invested his hard earned money to get uninterrupted service, unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment.<br /> <br /> 9. In view of discussions made by us in the above said paras, we are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he deserves certain relief. Of course complainant claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation. For the said claim there is no sound basis. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund Rs.799/- the sim card charges along with a litigation cost and pay a nominal compensation of Rs.500/-. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.799/- and pay a compensation of Rs.500/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <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 24th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />