Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/83

Sri Bisheshwar Pandit - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Reliance Communication Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amardeep Jhaa and Poonam

21 Apr 2023

ORDER

                District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-26-05-2017

Date of final hearing-21-04-2023

 Date of Order-21-04-2023

Case No. 83/2017

Arun Pandit S/o-Sri Bisheshwar Pandit

R/o- Village and Post Bhandaridah, Bermo,

District- Bokaro, Jharkhand

Vs.

1. The Reliance Communication Limited,

Plot NO. JA-1, City Centre, Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City ,

District- Bokaro, Jharkhand

2. The Reliance Communication Limited,

H Block first Floor Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,

Navi Mumbai, Maharahstra

 

 Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

1. Complainant’s case in short is that he was having Reliance CDMA handset and had applied for its portability to Reliance GSM on 06.06.2016 and paid Rs. 17,000/- in May 2015. Further case is that thereafter, he purchased HTC one E8 CDMA handset for Rs. 34,500/- who was intimated by the O.Ps. regarding his mobile No. 9334313318- that CDMA service will be closed very soon hence convert it in Reliance GSM 4G for which complainant taken steps and at that very time Rs. 3793/- was exiting in the account of the complainant. Further case is that on 06.06.2016 complainant obtained GSM Service and at that very time 3G SIM was provided with assurance to provide 4G SIM very soon. However, there was difficulty in service causing harassment to the complainant and to remove the difficulty complainant spent approx Rs 1,00,000/- but his problem was not removed. Further case is that on 18.12.2016 complainant went at Jalpaiguri West Bengal for organizing a business meeting on 20.12.2016 in respect to some educational institute but outgoing facility was suddenly stopped causing huge loss of Rs. 15,00,000/- in this way there is unfair trade practice by the O.Ps. hence this case has been filed with prayer to direct the parties to rectify its service and start out going facility of the mobile set of the complainant and also adjust Rs. 3793/- towards the mobile service and also to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.
2. On receipt of notice representative of O.Ps. appeared but has not filed W.S. hence vide order dt. 16.05.2018 O.Ps. have been debarred from filing W.S.
3. To prove its case complainant has produced photo copy of bills related to CDMA mobile number 9334313318 dt. 14.04.2015, 14.05.2015, 14.07.2015, 14.02.2016, 14.05.2016 and 15.06.2016 (Annexure-A). The first four bills are related to CDMA and remaining two bills are related to Reliance Mobile. On perusal of last bill it shows that after adjustment  of previous amounts all dues have been adjusted, hence  it is not proving the fact that there was balance of Rs. 3793/- in account of the complainant. Annexure-B is photo copy of Advocate’s Notice through which it cannot be said that it is evidence to prove the case. Complainant has not proved the fact that said number is being presently used by him under the service of O.P. There is no any evidence to show that complainant went to Jaipaiguri and sustained loss as alleged in the complaint petition.  There is no any evidence to prove that above noted mobile set was purchased by the complainant and how he sustained loss nor there is any evidence to show that the outgoing service of the complainant was stopped. Therefore, we are of the view that complainant has not proved his case for grant of any relief accordingly this case is being dismissed with cost.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                       President

                                     

 

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                       Member