Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/16/455

Dr.K Solly - Complainant(s)

Versus

The MD,Tata docomo - Opp.Party(s)

14 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

     SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

 SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR : MEMBER

                                     SRI.VIJU.V.R                : MEMBER

                                                       

CC.NO.455/2016 (Filed on : 23/09/2016)

ORDER DATED : 14/12/2022

 

COMPLAINANT

Dr.K.Solly,

S/o.K.P.Damodaran,

Residing at Gandhavathy,

TC.2/1150(6), Koonamkulam Lane,

Murinjapalam, Medical college.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram

 

(By Adv.M.R.Bindu)

                                                        VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

1. The Managing Director,

TATA DOCOMO Services Limited,

SL Plaza, Cochin, Pin – 682025

 

2. The Managing Director,

TATA DOCOMO, TC 1/1564 (13),

Pazhaya Road, Oppo. Muthoor Scanning Centre,

Medical College Junction

Thiruvananthapuram, Pin – 695011

 

(By Adv.M.V.Vinod)

ORDER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.     : MEMBER

1.       The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant has availed a land phone connection from the first opposite party through the second opposite party. The phone was properly working and twice the battery of the handset has been changed based on the complaint registered by the complainant. The complainant’s phone again went out of order from the month of May 2016 and the complainant registered a complaint on 30/05/2016. But nobody from the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2 came and contacted the complainant for redressing the problem. The complainant went to the second opposite party’s office on 15/06/2016 and a complaint was registered on that day. Since the problem was not resolved the complainant again went to the office of the second opposite party on 30/06/2016 and again complaint was registered and got an assurance from the second opposite party that the problem will be rectified within a week. The complainant waited till 15/07/2016.  On 16/07/2016 the complainant went to the office of the second opposite party and demanded to replace the handset and the second opposite party had received the handset and charging code from the complainant for replacing the same. But the second opposite party failed to replace the same and nothing happened till 22/07/2016. At last the complainant sent a registered advocate notice for which the second opposite party sent a reply stating untenable contentions. After receiving the reply notice the complainant came to know that the defect is clear. The handset was collected by the agent of the complainant on 04/08/2016 and it went in disorder from 05/08/2016 itself. This itself was the defect of the phone noted by the complainant and that is why he claimed for replacement. The complainant had received handset immediately on getting intimation through reply notice, since he was in urgent need of the land phone. The second opposite party had received Rs.350/- (Rupees three hundred and fifty only) as battery charge on 04/08/2016. But no bill was given and old battery is also not returned to the complainant even after requested. On the same day the complainant remitted Rs.350/- (Rupees three hundred and fifty only) as advance phone bill for which the second opposite party had issued a receipt. From the act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 it can be seen that they have not replaced the old battery but simply returned the phone to the complainant. The complainant suffered monitory loss due to the act of the opposite parties 1 & 2. The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

2.       Opposite parties 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party 1 & 2 has contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, as it is barred by Section 7 (B) of Telegraphic Act. The allegation is that the complainant approached the second opposite party in May 2016 regarding the complaint of handset is false. The second opposite party attended the problem of the complainant on 15/06/2016. The further allegation is that the complainant visited the office of the second opposite party on 30/06/2016 is false. The complainant never visited nor registered any complaint on 30/06/2016. The complainant’s first complaint was on 22/06/2016 which was duly attended by the second opposite party. But again the complainant visited the store of second opposite party on 07/07/2016 stating that the complaint was not rectified so another service request was raised which was also duly attended by the second opposite party and was closed after ensuring complainant’s satisfaction. The battery has been replaced by the second opposite party and one of the agents of the complainant had collected the phone on 04/08/2016. The allegation that the old battery was not returned or Rs.350/- (Rupees three hundred and fifty only) was claimed towards battery charge is incorrect. Rectification of the problem of the complainant was done in a time bound manner. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost to the proceedings.

3.       Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 & 2 ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

4.       Issues (i) and (ii)

The complainant had filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced three documents which were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Even though the complainant was present for cross examination, the opposite parties 1 & 2 did not turn up for cross examination. The opposite parties has not filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and also not produced any documents. The opposite parties 1 & 2 has filed a maintainability petition (IA.No.183/2017) and raised a contention that the complaint is not maintainable as per the provisions of the Indian Telegraphic Act. The maintainability petition was dismissed by this Commission. It is evident from Ext.P2 that the complainant has approached the second opposite party in connection with a problem occurred to the land phone of the complainant. The opposite parties 1 & 2 has not produced any contra evidence to disprove the case of the complainant. Hence deposition of the complainant stands unshaken and there is nothing to rebut the evidence to be putforth by the complainant. From the documents produced by the complainant we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case and there is deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2. Hence the opposite parties 1 & 2 are liable to compensate the complaint.

          In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost will carry an interest  @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

                   A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 14^th day of December 2022.

 

                                                                                       Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                    Sd/-

  PREETHA .G.NAIR: MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                                      Sd/-

VIJU.V.R     : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.455/2016

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - Dr.K.Solly

List of Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.A1                  - Copy of advocate notice

Ext.A2                  - Copy of reply notice along with complaint

Ext.A3                  - Copy of prepayment bill

List of witness for the opposite party          – NIL

Exhibits for the opposite party                    - NIL

Court Exhibits                                            - NIL

 

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                             PRESIDENT