Reliance Telecom Limited V/s Sri Satyam Allay
This is a discussion on Reliance Telecom Limited V/s Sri Satyam Allay within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA – 700 027 S.C. ...
- 09-01-2009, 06:49 PM #1
Reliance Telecom Limited V/s Sri Satyam Allay
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE
KOLKATA – 700 027
S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/89
DATE OF FILING : 12.01.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 29.05.2009
1. Area Manager
Reliance Telecom Limited
Hotel Mount Pleasant
H.D. Lama Road, Darjeeling.
2. Regional Manager
Reliance Telecom Limited
having its office at Sky Star AC Market 42/354
Sevoke Road, Siliguri-734 001.
Sri Satyam Allay
S/o. Sri P.K.Allay
BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY
MEMBER : MR. S.COARI
FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. P.Banerjee, Ld. Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. S.Choudhury, Ld. Advocate
: O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER
The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement 15.12.08 passed by the Darjeeling District Consumer Forum in C.C. Case No. 19/D/08 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint thereby directing the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The case of the complainant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant who happens to be a practising Advocate in the District Court of Darjeeling was enjoying the mobile facilities bearing number 9832042324 being a customer of Reliance GSM SIM Card. The complainant lost the mobile along with the SIM card and upon lodging a diary with the police and furnishing other particulars and upon payment of a sum of Rs. 130/- obtained a duplicate SIM card from the OP No. 1 with the assurance that the SIM card will be activated within a reasonable time. In spite of several requests and reminders the SIM card did not get activated within a reasonable period which compelled the complainant to file the complaint case.
The Ops entered appearance and contested the case by filing written objection thereby denying all the material allegations of the complainant contending inter alia that the actual service provider, i.e. AVIS, was not made a party to the complaint case and on this ground on the point of non-joinder of necessary party the complaint case is liable to be dismissed. Besides that, the OP also took a plea to the effect that for proper activation a SIM card requires some time and the complainant without waiting for a reasonable period has instituted the petition of complaint in hot haste in order to harass the Ops. There was no fault and/or deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed with cost.
The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the complainant is a Consumer and the plea of non-joinder of necessary party is not tenable and the Ops were responsible for not activating the SIM card within a reasonable period for which they should be penalized under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, allowed compensation and cost as mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in disposing of the case in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS
At the time of hearing the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants has submitted before us that there was no evidence before the Ld. District Forum while disposing of the complaint case and in the absence of any evidence it was not justified on the part of the Ld. District Forum to allow compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- along with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. It is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that there was definitely a defect in the complaint case in not impleading necessary party, i.e. AVIS, which is the actual service provider. But for reasons best known to the Ld. Forum this point is not at all considered to the detriment of the interest of the Ops. While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has also submitted that in a case of present nature the Appellant ought to have waited a little bit before taking recourse to law. For the purpose of activation of the SIM card some time is necessary and the complainant having filed the case without waiting for a reasonable time there was no point on the part of the Ld. District Forum in considering the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant and on this score alone the main judgement is liable to be set aside and the Appeal should be allowed.
We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellants, the materials on record including the impugned judgement and also the pleadings of the parties and find that in this case it is the specific case of the complainant that inspite of payment of requisite fees and observing necessary formalities the SIM card was not activated within a reasonable period. On the other hand, the Appellants/Ops’ case is that the Respondent/Complainant ought to have waited for a reasonable period as a SIM card requires some time for its proper activation. Now, after going through the impugned judgement we find that the standpoint taken by the Ld. District Forum on the point of defect of parties is quite justified and proper. When there is no denial about the issuance of a fresh SIM card in favour of the complainant, such sort of plea is not at all tenable and it is more so when the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation so far as it relates to deficiency in service. We are, therefore, of the opinion that from the facts and circumstances of the case it has become crystal clear that the SIM card was not activated within a reasonable period and there was nothing wrong on the part of the complainant to take recourse to law and approach the District Forum for redressal. However, in this connection, we take note of the fact that the Ops expressed regret and apology for the delay in activating the SIM card. Keeping in mind this proposition we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the quantum of compensation be reduced to Rs. 5,000/- only and the litigation cost be reduced to Rs. 2,000/-. Thus, the Appeal succeeds in part on contest as discussed above.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed on contest in part without cost. The compensation amount be reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and the litigation cost be reduced to Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). The other part of the impugned judgement stands unaltered. The Appellants are directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the Respondent and comply with the other part of the Forum’s judgement within 30 (thirty) days from the date of communication of this order, failing which penalty @ Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty only) per day will be imposed on the Appellants for the period of default.
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 1Last Post: 12-07-2010, 05:50 PM
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-02-2009, 10:41 PM
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-02-2009, 12:16 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 02:54 PM
- By Anil Chopra in forum Mobile ServicesReplies: 0Last Post: 04-02-2009, 08:20 PM