IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM U/C.P.ACT, 1986 AT NIZAMABAD.
Quorum : Sri P.Raghavender, B.Sc., LL.B., ….PRESIDENT
Sri.Y. Krishna, M.Com., …. MEMBER.
Smt K. Vinayakumari,M.A., LL.B., …MEMBER.
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2009
Date of filing of complaint : 11-02-2008
C.C. NO. 12 OF 2008Date of Order : 26-03-2009
Pavan Kumar Panday S/o Sri Ghan Shyamdas pandey, age about 29 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.7-1-471, Godown Road, Ramgopal Street, Nizamabad.
1)TATA Tele Services Ltd., Circle Ofice: 5-9-62, Khan Lateef Khan Building, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad – 500 001, represented through its person-in-charge.
2)Tata Indicom (Tata Tele Services), Nizamabad outlet, near Vijay Talkies, Nizamabad, represented through its person-in-charge.
This Consumer Complaint Case coming on 18-03-2009 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri A.Kumardas, Advocate for the complainant and Sri C.Niranjan Rao & Sri Rajkumar Subedar, Advocates, for Opposite Parties and upon hearing the arguments of both side advocates and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following :
:: O R D E R ::(ORAL ORDER Smt.K.VINAYA KUMARI, MEMBER)
1. The complainant a businessman and resident of Nizamabad district having been attracted by the combi-offer scheme of the opposite party obtained connection from opposite party No.2 by paying required amount of Rs.1,999/- as consideration. As per combi-offer 124 plan scheme, the calls made between mobile and walky are free and calls made from Tata to Tata within A.P. are free of cost with Rs.75/- as additional payment. There is also provision of talk time worth of Rs.150/- free.
The complainant was allotted mobile number 9246910963 and walky No.646763 by the opposite party and both connections stated functioning from 17-09-2007 onwards.
To the dismay of the complainant the opposite party all of sudden stopped the outgoing call facility in the last week of September 2007 to both connections causing great inconvenience and hardship to the complainant. The oral representation of the complainant in the office of opposite party No.2 and also to the customer care did not yield any result.
In the meantime the complainant was served with bill dated 11-10-2007 for Rs.707/- and the complainant was shocked to observe that contrary to the narration of the scheme under combi-offer 124 the calls made from Tata to Tata were also charged. The written representation of the complainant to the Opposite Party to immediately restore the barred out going call facility and also to provide free of charge call facility from Tata to Tata as under combi-offer 124 plan did not yield any result instead was served with another bill dated 11-01-2008 for Rs.2,089/-.
The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party in changing the tariff plan without consent of the customer, disconnection of mobile and walky without notice or intimation and also failure to issue the bills afresh by correcting their records under combi-offer 124 even after written representation and therefore prayed to 1) restore the connection bearing mobile No.9246910963 and walky No..646763 under combi-offer 124 plan, 2) to issue revised bills dated 11-10-2007 and 11-01-2008 afresh under combi-offer 124 plan and further to waive all the chargers to pay till the restoration is made, Rs.25,000/- as compensation along with costs of the complaint.
2. The Opposite Party No.2 remained ex-party.
The Opposite Party No.1 filed counter admitting allotting No.9246910963 and other walky fixed wireless connection vide No.08462 646763 under combo-offer 124 but denied all the other allegations of the complainant materially contending that the complainant after opting the required scheme signed the application form and has opted for Tata to Tata free for walky connection only and not for mobile connection. The bills issued to the complainant clearly go to show the scheme opted by complainant. The complainant in order to evade payment of outstanding amount filed a false complainant and therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint as there is no deficiency in service on their part to the complainant.
3. During the enquiry, both parties lead their evidence by filing their affidavits. Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents are marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents filed on behalf of Opposite Party.
4. Heard arguments of both side Advocates.
5. The points for consideration are:
1)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party to the complainant ?
2)Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs prayed for ?
6. POINT No.1 :- It is admitted by both parties that the complainant took two connections one mobile vide No.9246910963 and one fixed landline vide No.646763 under the combo-offer 124 from Opposite Party.
The point of dispute is the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties in changing the tariff plan from combo-offer 124 to plan 125 without his consent and issuing bills under plan 125 even after his written representation not to do so and barring outgoing calls without prior notice and in evidence produced Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents.
The Opposite Party No.2 counters the said allegation and stated that as per scheme opted by the complainant in the application from the bills are issued and the complainant in order to evade payment of outstanding amount against them came out with false case and therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs in the ends of justice.
Heard arguments of both side Advocates and perused the material on record.
From customer application form (Ex.A1) it is clear that complainant opted for combi-offer 124 plan of the Opposite Party and paid Rs.1,999/- in cash. Ex.A2 clearly go to show that under combi-offer 124, 1,000 minutes, 1,000 SMS are free along with 150 free talk time.
But as per bill dated 11-10-2007 (Ex.A5) which was send by the Opposite Party to the complainant the tariff plan is H2M 125 plan. As seen from record the written representation of the complainant (Ex.A4) to provide free of change call facility from Tata to Tata as promised under the plan 124 and to send revised bill did not yield any result.
The Opposite Party did not inform the complainant about the change of tariff plan fro 124 to plan 125. The Opposite Party did not produce the complainants application form and also details of the scheme under combi-offer 124 which is in their possession to prove their version and to disprove the version of the complainant.
The Opposite Party did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that the combi-offer 124 was for a limited period and the complainant gave his consent for change of tariff plan from plan 124 to 125.
For failure to produce any evidence by Opposite Parties necessary and adverse inference shall have to be drawn against the version of the Opposite Party. We are therefore of the opinion that the complainant proved his allegation in the complaint against the Opposite Parties.
In view of the reasons stated above and material on record we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties to the complainant.
Accordingly this point goes in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties.
7. POINT No.2 :- In view of our findings on the foregoing point No.1 and the reasons mentioned there in we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for following reliefs.
The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally are directed to issue revised bills dated 11-10-2007 onwards under combi-offer 124 plan, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, And also to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of the complaint.
8. IN THE RESULT, the complaint is allowed partly as under:
The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally are direct to:
1)Issue revised bills dated 11-10-2007 onwards under combi-offer 124 plan.
2)to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony.
3)And also to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of the complaint
4)Time one month to comply from the date of receipt of order copy.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in Open Forum on this the 26th day of March 2009.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::(Witnesses examined on behalf of)
For the Complainant : For the Opposite Party:
Affidavit of Complainant Counter affidavit of opposite
filed as evidence party filed as evidence.
Ex.A1:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::
Original customer application form of opposite parties in the name of complainant.
Original writing on white papers slips.
Original courier receipt No.168148 Dt.14-11-2007 addressed to opposite party by the complainant.
Original courier receipt No.168148 Dt.14-11-2007 duly served on opposite party.
Copy of representation letter addressed to opp No.1 by the complainant.
For the Opposite parties: