Complainant:
H/CAPT. RAMESHWAR SINGH
No.78, 1st Floor
Kamaraj Road
Sivan Chetty Garden PO
Bangalore- 560 042
/vs/
Opposite Parties:
1.Manager
IDEA MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
LIMITED
A-68, Sector 64
NOIDA (UP)-201301
2.Manager
Idea Cellular Limited
(Also serves Bangalore Operations)
11/1, Sharda Centre
Erandwane (Off. Karve Road)
Pune-411004
3.Manager
IDEA CELLULAR COMPANY
Branch Office
Near Chowki Chauraha
Bareilly-243001 (UP)
4.Sunny Electronics
PILI KOTHI, GROUND FLOOR
Opp New Patel Medical
& Singh Communication Centre
Near Gopi Chowk
Budaun – 243 601 (UP)
O R D E R
SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties (Ops in short) for the compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant used to visit his native place every year and stayed there for two to three months. During April 2007, he purchased IDEA mobile No.9917345660 bearing SIM No.H-2-8991560610508305554 (photocopy enclosed) to avoid roaming charges on his Bangalore number. He also opted for the Life time offer to retain the validity on extra one time payment of Rs.495/- and validity was given up to June 2012 in first instance and was to be automatically extended thereafter. There were no other conditions for Lifetime offer at that point of time.
This year when he visited his native place during May-Jun and tried using his mobile using the IDEA SIM mentioned above. He found no signal on the screen. He approached the shopkeeper from whom he had purchased the SIM card and also opted for the Lifetime Offer, the address of whom is as Op No.4. IDEA Cellular Company office shown as Op No.1 was also contacted. IDEA Cellular Company Branch office shown as Op No.3 was also approached. Even after his utmost efforts to contact IDEA Cellular company concerned offices, nothing could be achieved till date. Hence the complainant approached this forum.
Notices were sent to the Ops under RPAD. The notices were served on Ops 3 and 4 but they remained absent. Inspite of granting two adjournments and no one represented them. Hence Ops 3 and 4 placed ex-parte. The notices sent to Ops 1 and 2 under RPAD, acknowledgement not returned and the cover sent to the addressee under RPAD were also not returned inspite of completion of 69 days from the date of its dispatch. Hence it is treated as served on them. Both Ops 1 and 2 remained absent and no one represented them. Hence Ops 1 and 2 placed ex-parte. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments of the complainant.
The complainant specifically on oath stated about the purchase of Idea mobile with SIM to avoid roaming charge when he visited out of State. When it was not functioned, he made several efforts to contact the OPs but none responded to the complainant. This sort of an act on the part of the Ops definitely amounts to deficiency in service.
These facts have not been specifically denied by the Ops. Even though the notices were served on them, they remained absent and failed to submit their statement of objection to rebut the evidence of the complainant. In the absence of specific denial by the Ops, the evidence given by the complainant is unchallenged.
In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Accordingly, we pass the following order.
O R D E R
Complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable.
Opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) and this amount is to be paid to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Submit Complaint..

