Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

59/2014

K.Pravin Kumar,S/o.P.Kalai mani, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.P.UdayaKumar

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  01.04.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  14.12.2016

 

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 14^th   DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.59/2014

 

 

K.Pravin Kumar,

S/o. P.Kalai Mani,

No.21/109, Vedha Salai,

Kulasekarapuram,Chinmaya Nagar,

Chennai – 600 026.

                                                                                            ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The Managing Director,

M/s. Tata Teleservices Limited,

13^th Floor, Prince Info City – II,

No.283 & 284, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,

Kandhanchavadi, Chennai – 600 096.

 

1.The Manager,

Tata Docomo Brand Store,

No.C-29/B, 2^nd Avenue,

Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 01.04.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. P.Udaya Kumar, Jaya Prakash

                                                                & Prabakar

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 u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The 2^nd Opposite Party sales person namely Miss Divya offered to change the Complainant’s Aircel prepaid mobile No.9942094372 into the 1^st Opposite Party post paid service. The 2^nd Opposite Party’s one male executive also collected all the particulars from the Complainant and also obtained his signature in the application.  The Complainant chose Rs.249/- monthly plan/Scheme offered by Opposite Party, which contains 1000 Local free minutes, 249 free Local/National SMS and free 200 MB data. He gave his native address for his billing address and also provided his E-mail ID for communication purpose. The Opposite Parties had completed their verification process and provided their post paid service to the Complainant on 05.12.2013. After getting Opposite Party’s post paid service, Complainant got shock and surprise of non availability of network coverage in his house and not getting proper signal while travelling in Bus, exclusively not covered inside the office, hospital and home when compared with other networks. Hence my client called Opposite Party’s customer care service and lodged Complaint   (Complaint.No.394617079). But till date the Opposite Parties not solved the problem. It is nothing but unfair trade practice and against the fair practices code. The Opposite Parties network signal automatically suspended from his mobile for a few minutes and restored automatically, simultaneously he received a SMS from Opposite Party stating that the Complainant got missed calls during the above network suspended time, if Complainant want to know who called him, the Complainant has to send SMS to 52255 at cost of Rs.1 (or) subscribing Missed call alert service at the rate of Rs.30 for one month. Hence the Complainant had strong doubt that the Opposite Party tactically insist to sell their Missed call alert to him.   In the above circumstances Opposite Parties barred his outgoing facility on 12.12.2013 without any reason. Hence, he contacted 2^nd Opposite Party’s sales representative namely Ms.Diviya and requested to solve the problem. But she demanded to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards security deposit for the reason is Complainant is a bachelor and at arbitrarily without considers his request. Anyhow Complainant got outgoing facility on 14.12.2013, due to his great legal effort against the 2nd Opposite Party. Due to Opposite Parties deficiency in service, (i.e. not to provide adequate signal), he lost his communication (incoming/outgoing) and was curtailed from the people. Due to this, he lost his reputation before the society because he is a Lawyer and he should be always available in communication for that purpose only he chooses postpaid service. He gave full network signal on his Mobile signal bars, but people trying to connect him they heard Complainant “Mobile is switched off/not reachable” despite the fact his mobile is perfectly switched on with full signal and more over the Complainant’s calls are dropping in the middle of the conversation and at times he  got “Call Failed”, “Error in connection”, “Network not available”, “Network Busy” messages from Opposite Party and disconnected abruptly similarly occurred in GPRS data service. Due to the deficiency in service of the Opposite Party, he suffered untold misery, mental agony and hardship. Due to the above said problem, he diverted his incoming calls to another mobile number (9840146261) using call divert facility and pay charges for that service. It means he is paying double charges for incoming call.  The Opposite Party’s customer care team called him and requested to pay the bill amount on or before due date without sending the bill to his given billing address and have been called customer care and request to send e-bill to his e-mail address. Further he received the same on the same date and then he came to know Opposite Party charged Rs.50/- for data plan and Rs.10.20/- for value added service. Hence, he called Opposite Party’s customer care and requested to waive that wrongful charges, but till now Opposite Party cannot consider his request is merely punishable under the Indian Penal Code for wrongful gain.  Therefore the Complainant issued legal notice dated 07.01.2014 in respect of negligence and Deficiency in Service of the Opposite Party’s. On 10.02.2014 the Opposite Party without solving the above mentioned grievances and without sending the bills to his billing address, barred his outgoing facility without any prior notice by arbitrarily. Due to this above mentioned “call divert” facility was also barred, hence Complainant totally curtailed from his communication. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.4,98,000/- for mental agony with cost of Complaint.

2. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant has chosen Rs.249/- monthly plan/scheme offered by the Opposite Party. It is submitted that the Complainant has approached the Opposite Parties to avail post paid services and duly filled up the applications with his native Residential Proof, Identity Proof, and two passport size photos, where they entered into an agreement. It is further submitted that he was provided his e-mail ID for communication purpose and the Respondents provided the service bearing mobile No.9942094372 since 05.12.2013. It is false to state that the Opposite Party barred his outgoing facility on 12.12.2013 without any reason and it is false to state that he got his outgoing facility on 14.12.2013 due to his great legal effort. It is further submitted that the Complainant enjoyed the services from the Opposite Party continuously from 05.12.2013 to 08.04.2014 but he had failed to make even a single payment as against the outstanding amount of Rs.1,158/-.  The Opposite Party looks forward to the pleasure of service the Complainant as a valued member of Tata Teleservices Family. This Opposite Party further submits that he had not cheated or indulged in any unfair trade practice as alleged by the Complainant and has rightly billed the petitioner for the post-paid connection. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the Deficiency in Service is upon the person who alleges it. Hence the Opposite Parties submit that there is no cause of action for the Complaint since there is no Deficiency in Service by this Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and prays to dismiss the Complaint.                   

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4.POINT : 1

          It  is an admitted fact that the Complainant chosen monthly plan for a sum of Rs.249/- scheme which contains 1000 local free minutes, 249 free local/National SMS, and free 2MB data and the service was  provided to the Complainant after due verification paid service on 05.12.2013 and the Tata Docomo  allotted to him the number  is 9942094372.

          5. The Complainant alleged Deficiency in Service that due to his shock and surprise there was no network coverage in his house, while travelling in the bus and inside of his advocate office when compared with other networks and the Complainant called the Opposite Parties  and registered Complaint No.394617079 and however the Opposite Parties  did not solve the problem and the network signal automatically suspended and if the Complainant wants to know who called him doing the suspended network time he has to send SMS at a cost of Rs.1/- or service at the rate of Rs.30/- p.m and this leads to an inference that the Opposite Parties  practicing unfair trade practice and even sometime he had  full network signal the calls are dropping in the middle of the conversation and at times he got call failed, network busy and further the Opposite Parties  without sending the bill asked the Complainant to pay the bill.

          6. The Opposite Parties replied that they have not committed any Deficiency in Service and whenever the Complainant gave Complaint it was properly attended by them and it is the Complainant even though used his mobile connection he had not paid the bill sent to him and therefore the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service.

          7. The Complainant marked Ex.A5 series as various correspondences between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have marked Ex.B1 series bills issued by them to the Complainant with detailed call particulars requiring the Complainant to pay to them. In some e-mail correspondences, the Complainant stated that he had not received the bill from the Opposite Parties. In Ex.A5 at page 25 the 1^st Opposite Party sent an e-mail letter to the Complainant dated 20.02.2014 in respect of non-receiving bill. In the said letter the 1st Opposite Party specifically attached e-mail for the period 15.11.2013 to 14.12.2013, 15.12.2013 to 14.01.2014 and 15.01.2014 to 14.01.2014 and further at page 35 of the same document the 1^st Opposite Party sent an e-mail dated 04.03.2014 to the Complainant that his payment of Rs.1,036/- for the month of  February 2014 is overdue and please pay to avoid disconnection of service. Ex.A5 at page 25 of e-mail letters proves that the 1^st Opposite Party sent Complainant’s mobile bill to him for their period mentioned above. In Ex.B1 along with the bills for each bill itemized details of call particulars have been also enclosed. Against each call time and duration, the contacted phone number has been mentioned. According to the Opposite Parties in the mentioned phone numbers the Complainant had contacted and spoken with those numbers during the relevant date and time mentioned in the document. Ex.B1 series call particulars and bills have been filed in this Forum on 02.05.2014. However after filing this document by the Opposite Parties nearly after 2 years, the Complainant has filed his proof affidavit in this Forum on 22.04.2016. Nowhere in the proof affidavit of the Complainant had he denied that he had contacted the mobile numbers mentioned in the call particulars. Therefore the Opposite Parties proved throughEx.B1 series that the Complainant had spoken with various numbers given in the call particulars and also the Complainant failed to pay the bills for the usage done by the Complainant. Therefore in such circumstances we hold that the Complainant has not proved the deficiency alleged by him against the Opposite Parties and hence we hold that the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service.       

 8.POINT :2        

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complainant 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 15^th  day of December 2016.

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 05.01.2014                            Legal Notice

Ex.A2 dated 10.01.2014                            Reply letter through e-mail

Ex.A3 dated 07.01.2014                            Postal Receipt

Ex.A4 dated 08.01.2014                            Acknowledgement card

Ex.A5 dated 20.01.2014                            Complaint through e-mail (series 5A to 5K)

              To  10.03.2014

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B1 dated November 2013            Copy of the bills issued by the           

                    To March 2014                    Respondents/Opposite Parties  

                          

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT