Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/33/2014

V. Balu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor,Mani Mobile Centre - Opp.Party(s)

S. Shanmugam

30 Oct 2014

ORDER

Date of Filing      : 25.08.2014

                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 30.10.2014

           

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com., ….  MEMBER I

               Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMER II

 

 

CC. No.33/2014

 

DECIDED ON THIS 30^th DAY OF OCTOBER  2014.

 

 

            Balu, Age 58/2014,

             S/o Veeraragavan

             Keeraikollai Street, 2^nd Cross,

             Nagapattinam Town, Taluk,

              Nagapattinam District.                                                        …..Complainant

                                                                                                  

                                                                /versus/

                                   

1. Proprietor, Mani Mobile Centre,

     Perumal South Street, Near Venus Color Lab,

 Nagapattinam Town, Taluk and Munsif.     

2. Aircel Area Sales Manager,

    N.P. Telelink, Aircel District Distributer,

     Neela west street, Nagapattinam 611 001.

3. Marketing Manager,

    Aircel Ltd., Kodissia Tower, 5A,

           T.B. Road, Coimbatore – 641 018.                                      ….. Opposite parties

 

  

 

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 15.10.2014, on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru.L.Shanmugam, Counsel for the complainant,  opposite parties 1 to 3 having  been set exparte and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum passed the following

 

 

      ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

                        2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that in pursuance of the advertisement that under the special scheme named Neeum Naanum (you and I) two sim cards with consecutive numbers shall be given to the customers, the complainant purchased two sim cards under the said scheme for the sum of Rs.200/- on 28.05.2014 from the 1^st opposite party who informed that the simcards would be activated within three hours from the time of its usage.  The mobile numbers allotted to the simcards are 21758513163 and 21758513164.  But the said sim cards were not at all activated when put to use.  When the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party in this regard, he did not respond and answer properly.  Then he approached the 2^nd opposite party and complained and he also did not answer properly. For the notice sent by the complainant on 04.07.2014 through his advocate to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, they received it on 08.07.2014, but they have not replied.  While the maximum retail price is printed as Rs.154/- on the simcard pack it is sold for the sum of Rs.200/- to the complainant which is also an unfair trade practice.  Because of the deficiency of service of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, the complainant has suffered from mental agony, inconvenience and hardship.  The 3^rd opposite party being the Marketing Manager and Higher Official to the opposite party 1 and 2 is impleaded as party to this complaint.  The complainant prays for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay the sum of Rs.25000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience and loss caused to the complainant and Rs.5000/- towards expenses of this complaint and to grant such and other reliefs as this Forum would deem fit.

 

                        3. The notices on this complaint have been served on the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties on 28.08.2014 and on the 3^rd opposite party on 30.08.2014.  When the complaint was taken up on 25.09.2014 all the opposite parties were absent and hence it was adjourned to 07.10.2014.  As the President was on Casual Leave on 07.10.2014, the matter was adjourned to 13.10.2014.  On that day also the opposite parties were called, found to be absent and hence they were set exparte.  The complainant has filed his proof affidavit reiterating all the averments made in the complaint and has filed 4 documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A4.  Written arguments have also been filed by the complainant.

4. Points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what?

 

5. Point 1: Aircel pack which had contained the two simcards with consecutive numbers under the special scheme named Neeum Naanum (You and I) is  marked as Exhibit A1.  In the said pack Maximum Retails Price is mentioned to be Rs.77, processing fee Rs.68.83/- and service Tax Rs.8.47/-.  Therefore the total cost of the pack is Rs.154.  The two sim cards are marked as Exhibit A2 series, the office copy of the notice sent to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties is marked as Exhibits A3 and the two Acknowledgement cards received by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are marked as Exhibit A4 series.  It is alleged in the 2^nd paragraph of the complaint that the 1^st opposite party has sold the pack containing the two sim cards under the said special scheme for Rs.200/- and the said cards have failed to be activated.  It is pertinent to note that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have not cared even to send a reply to the notice sent by the complainant through his advocate.  Further the opposite parties have failed to appear before this Forum and they are set exparte.  Mere failure on the part of the opposite parties to appear before this Forum in response to the notice served on them on the complaint filed by the complainant would go to show that they have no defence at all to answer the allegations made by the complainant.  Therefore the allegations of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice stand proved.  Therefore the opposite parties are deficient in their service.  The 1^st opposite party has also committed unfair trade practice by selling the sim card for Rs.200/-, while the actual price of the sim card is Rs.154/-.

                        6. Point 2: In the result the complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties are directed to pay the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only)  either jointly or severally towards compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant owing to their deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of this litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall  carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till date of its realization.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this 30^th day of  October 2014.

 

 

    MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                      PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant

 

Ex.A1/Dt. Nil             : Original Aircel simcard pack given by the 1^st opposite party to the

   complainant.

Ex.A2/Dt. Nil             :  Two sim cards given by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.A3/Dt. July 2014: The Xerox copy of the lawyer notice sent by the complainant to the

 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A4/Dt.8^th & 14^th July 2014: Two acknowledgement cards received by the 1^st and 2^nd

       opposite party.

 

 

 

    MEMBER I                                     MEMER II                                            PRESIDENT

 

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.33/ 2014

Order Dt.: 30.10.2014.