IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Thursday the 31st day of August, 2017.

Filed on 13/12/2017

Present

1.Smt. Elizabeth George, President

2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member

3.Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)                  

         in 

  C.C.No.400/2016

                                                              between

        Complainant:-        Opposite Party:-

 

Sri. P.K. Karunakara Kurup Sri. Vahab, Valamparambu Veedu 

Revathy Veedu, Neerkunnam Neerkunnam, Vandanam P.O.

Vanadanam P.O. Alappuzha – 688 005 (Home address)

Alappuzha – 688 005 M/s. Riha Communication

Near S.D.V. U.P. School

Neerkunnam, Vandanam P.O.

Alappuzha – 688 005

 

O R D E R

SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)

The complainant’s case in precise is as follows:-   

The complainant on 28th November, 2016 at 8.45 p.m. approached the opposite party to get his mobile charged.  The complainant so approached the opposite party particularly at that point of time for the reason that if not charged at that time before 12 p.m. that day, the 20 hours ‘talk time’ he was having in his phone would have been cancelled.  The opposite party received an amount of Rs.149/- from the complainant, and assured that the phone would be charged.  At 9.45 p.m. the complainant realized that the phone was not charged as assured by the opposite party.  The nephew of the complainant instantaneously visited the opposite party’s shop only to see that its shutter downed.  Next morning when examined, it was realized that the phone was not charged.  When the opposite party was approached, he made some lame excuses blaming net work disorders.  The complainant went the BSNL office, and came to learn that the opposite party has not charged the complainant’s phone.  The BSNL personnel called the opposite party up over phone, and at this point the opposite party charged the complainant’s phone for an amount of  Rs. 149/-.  However by this time the complainant has lost the benefit of 20 hours ‘talk time’, and the complainant sustained loss for an amount of Rs.600/-.  The complainant on several occasions demanded the opposite party to give the complainant the said amount of Rs.600/- to indemnify the loss the opposite party caused to the complainant.  The opposite party caused pecuniary loss as well as mental agony to the complainant.  Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.  

              2.  Though notice was served, the opposite party was not keen on appearing before this Forum.  Resultant the opposite party was set ex-parte.   

3. The complainant’s evidence consists of his nephew was examined as PW1 and the documents Exts.A1 to A4 were marked.  The opposite party adduced no evidence.

           4.   Taking into account the contentions of the complainant, the issues come up before us for consideration are:-

1) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

           2)  Whether the opposite party committed deficiency in service?

 

5.    The complainant’s specific case as it appears is that the complainant on 28th November, 2016 at 8.45 p.m. approached the opposite party to get his mobile charged.  The complainant so approached the opposite party particularly at that time for the reason that if not charged at that time before 12 p.m. that day, the 20 hours ‘talk time’ he was having in his phone would have been cancelled.  The opposite party received an amount of Rs.149/- from the complainant, and assured that the phone would be charged.  At 9.45 p.m. the complainant realized that the phone was not charged as assured by the opposite party.  The nephew of the complainant instantaneously visited the opposite party’s shop only to see that its shutter downed.  Next morning when examined, it was realized that the phone was not charged.  When the opposite party was approached, he made some lame excuses blaming net work disorders.  The complainant went the BSNL office, and came to learn that the opposite party was not charged the complainant’s phone.  The BSNL personnel called the opposite party up over phone, and at this point the opposite party charged the complainant’s phone for an amount of Rs.149/-.  However by this time the complainant sustained loss for an amount of Rs.600/-.  As we have already observed, the opposite party has not turned up before this Forum, did not make it a point to pursue the case or to adduce any evidence.  The complainant’s case otherwise stands established by Ext.A1 and his reliable testimony have not been challenged by the opposite party.  We find not any particular reason to disbelieve the complainant’s all the more probable case.  We are of the firm view that the opposite party apparently committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Viewing from any perspective the complainant is entitled to relief.  

In the result, complaint allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.600/- (Rupees six hundred only) and a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant.  The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2017.

    Sd/-Sri. Antony Xaiver (Member)  :

      Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George(President)                        

              Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)

 

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1 - Raveendranathan. P.V. (Witness)

Ext.A1 - RTI letter dated 28.4.2017

Ext.A2 - Leaflet of BSNL

Ext.A3 - Statement

Ext.A4 - Authorization letter

 

Evidence of the opposite party :-  Nil

 

 

// True Copy //

 

By Order

 

Senior Superintendent

To

Complainant/Oppo. Parties/S.F

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-