Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/208/2013

Purnesh Upadhyay - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Purnesh Upadhyay

10 Apr 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:07-08-2013

                                                                                                Date of Order:10-04-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President   

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                                  Friday, the 10^th day of April, 2015.

                                  CONSUMER CASE No.208/2013

Between:-

Purnesh Upadhyay, S/o Shiv Kumar

Upadhyay, aged 20 years, residing at

Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law

University, Plot No. 116, MVP Colony,

Sector 1, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-

530017.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.The Manager, Naidu Associates,

   # 1-83-18/3, Plot No. 26, MVP Double Road,

   Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530017.

2.The Manager, Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd.,

   D. No. 10-1-8, 1^st Floor, the Landmark, Waltair Ward,

   Asilmetta, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530006.

3.The Manager, Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd.,

    Laxmi Cyber City, 2^nd floor, Block ‘C’, Survey No. 10,

    Kondapur, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500084.

                                                                                         …  Opposite Parties

                           

          This case coming on 07.04.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P. Upadhyay  (appeared inperson), the Complainant and the Manager (appeared inperson) of the 1^st Opposite Party and the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties being claim dismissed as not pressed and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri C. V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asks the Forum to order the 1^st Opposite Party: a) To refund Rs.1,400/- with interest of 2% per month from the date of purchase till the date of loss realized; b) To pay him Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony suffered; and c) To pay Rs.5,000/- towards the expenditure incurred by him.

 

2.       The 1^st Opposite Party, though appeared inperson in the first instance, did not resist the claim of the Complainant, as he failed to file any counter.  The case against the Opposite Parties 2 and 3 was dismissed as not pressed by the Complainant.

           

3.       The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the Complaint, is that his name is Purnesh Upadhyay, a student of Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam.   He bought an MTS Mblaze on February 8^th, 2013 from an authorized MTS Shop.   The cost of MTS-Mblaze is Rs.1,400/-, the bill was produced by the Manager of the authorized MTS shop and was in the name of the Complainant only.  Mr. Dilip Kumar is the Manager of Naidu Associates (1^st Opposite Party) from whom the Complainant bought the product.     The Complainant brought the product and started using it.   On February 26, 2013 the balance got over and he went to the same shop for the recharge of his services.   Mr. Dilip told him that by the order of the court, MTS is going to shut down its services in Andhra Pradesh and no further recharge can be made from then.  He also told him that the MTS Modem is now of no use.    Now the Complainant is at a loss of Rs.1,400/- even after not using the services well, it was only twenty days that he used the product and its services.   When he enquired about the court order he came to know that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held on February 02, 2012 to shut down MTS’s services in Andhra Pradesh from March 22, 2013 which means right after a year Mr. Dilip Kumar sold the product to him on February 8, 2013 without even informing the Complainant about the orders of the court.   The Complainant also has sent mail to the company regarding this issue but the Opposite Party gave reply of none; the Complainant also gave the feed back in MTS’s site but from there also the Complainant did not get any reply.   Due to all such incidents there was great impact on his studies, he is a student and his only purpose to get an internet facility was to get a help regarding all the project works that they give in their college.   As this happened he was unable to get his project done in the prescribed time and because of that he lost his grades in all the subjects.   The loss of grades created a great problem in his End Semester and will also create even more problems in future.   The Complainant also faced lot of problems in finding the main branch office of MTS in Visakhapatnam as he did not belong to this place.   Searching for offices and hoping for help from them was a complete waste, the Complainant even missed some of his classes because of this, he has spent good amount of money on this problem which is quite difficult for a student to spend when he was living away from his family.   After getting no relief from the company he decided to approach this Forum for the inconvenience suffered.   The Complainant also sent notice to the company regarding this on 19.03.2013 to the Opposite Parties i.e., to the authorized shop from where he bought the product, to the main office of MTS in Visakhapatnam and the main office of MTS in Andhra Pradesh via speed post saying that they shall reply him within a fortnight or else, he shall approach this Forum.   Even after waiting for a very long time, he did not get any reply from the company.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

4.       The Complainant filed an affidavit and also written arguments to support his claim.      Exs.A1 to A5 are marked for the Complainant.

 

5.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the Complainant.

         

6.       After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the 1^st  Opposite Party sold the MTS Mblaze Modem on February 8^th , 2013 though the Supreme Court ordered on February 2^nd , 2012 itself to shut down MTS’s Services in Andhra Pradesh.   Thus, the 1^st Opposite Party sold the device knowing full well that he was not authorized to sell it.   Therefore, the 1^st Opposite Party is squarely liable to refund the amount of Rs.1,400/- paid by the Complainant with interest from the date of purchase  till the date of actual realization.    As the non-disclosure of useful information regarding the shutdown of the MTS’s Service to the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service cum unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party, the Complainant is entitled to suitable compensation.   Moreover, as the Complainant is forced to file this complaint because of the deficiency in service cum unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party, the Complainant is entitled to costs of this Complaint too.   As the Complainant himself not pressed his claim on the Opposite Parties 2 and 3, the case against the Opposite Parties 2 and 3 is liable to be dismissed.

    

7.       In the result, this Forum directs the 1^st Opposite Party: 1) to refund Rs.1,400/- (Rupees One thousand and four hundred only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from February, 8^th  2013 till the date of actual realization and to pay b) a compensation of  Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and c) Costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month.   

          After compliance, the Complainant has to return the modem in question to the 1^st Opposite Party.   

          The case against the Opposite Parties 2 and 3 is herewith dismissed as not pressed by the Complainant.

 

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 10^th day of April, 2015.

 

Sd/-                                   Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

President                          Lady Member                           Male Member

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	08.02.2013	Tax Invoice No.228 an amount of Rs.1,400/- issued by the 1st OP in favour of the Complainant	Original
Ex.A02		Copy of notice by MTS India on their site	Computer copy
Ex.A03		Copy of Feedback sent by my brother	Computer copy
Ex.A04	19.03.2013	Set of notices sent along with bill copy	Computer copy
Ex.A05	19.03.2013	3 Postal Receipts	Original

For the 1^st Opposite Party:-            

-Nil-

 Sd/-                                   Sd/-                                            Sd/-

President                            Lady Member                             Male Member