Kerala

StateCommission

A/70/2018

KERALA CIRCLE MANAGER, VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

P SANKARANKUTTY - Opp.Party(s)

S REGHUKUMAR

20 Mar 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.70/18

JUDGMENT DATED : 20.03.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.542/2009

on the file of CDRF, Thrissur)

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        :JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT.R                          : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A           :MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS / OPPOSITE PARTIES 1& 2

1. Kerala Circle Manager, Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd, Kerala,

Head Office 2^nd Floor, Ashis Supermarket, High Road Junction, Marine Drive, Kochi

 

2. Jency Rodrigues, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd, 1st Floor, Mather Square, Kochi

 

(By Adv.Sri.Shyam Padman & Adv.Sri.S.Reghu kumar)

 

VS

 

RESPONDENTS

1. P.Sankarankutty, Porakkattu House, Thalavanikkara, Thalore.P.O

 

2. Vinodh, The Branch Manager, Thrissur District, Vodafone Essar, Cellular Ltd, Office, E-Town Building, Kizakke Kotta, Thrissur

(R1 appeared in person)

JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                :JUDICIAL MEMBER

Opposite parties 1 & 2 in CC.No.542/2009 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, in short the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the District forum by which the appellants along with opposite party no.3 in the complaint / second respondent were directed to pay Rs 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs 2000/- as cost of the proceedings.

 

        2.     The case of the complainant is that he had recharged his mobile phone on 01.09.2016 for Rs 774/- from the opposite parties and they did not provide him the promised talk time. Even though the complainant approached the opposite parties many times to redress his grievance, they did not turn up for the same. The complainant filed the complaint before the Legal Service Authority, Thrissur and finally they closed the petition. Due to the act and conduct to the opposite parties the complainant sustained loss. There was negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. So the complainant has filed the complaint claiming Rs 2,000/- as compensation and Rs 1000/- as cost from the opposite parties. The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed written version raising the following contentions. The complaint is barred by limitation and not maintainable. Opposite parties are not liable to extend any benefits to the complainant and whatever benefits he has been entitled was duly enjoyed by the complainant. There was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the opposite parties.

        3.     The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A29 were marked on his side. RW1 was examined and Ext.R1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties.

            4. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the opposite parties 1 & 2 have preferred the present appeal.

        5.     Heard counsel for the appellants and R1, who appeared in person. Perused the records.

                6.     The allegation of the complainant is that he had recharged his mobile phone on 01.09.2016 for Rs 777/- from the opposite parties. But they did not provide him the promised talk time. The complainant approached the opposite parties many times to redress his grievance. But they did not turn up for the same. It is the case of the complainant that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties he had sustained loss. The complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and he claimed compensation from them. The complainant gave deposition as PW1 and he had produced documents which were marked as Exts.A1 to A29. The first opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties the district forum found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties 1 & 2. Considering the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case we find that there is no ground / reason to interfere with the said finding of the district forum.

7.     The district forum directed the opposite parties to pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation and Rs 2000/- as cost. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the amount of compensation and cost ordered by the district forum is not proper, unsustainable and baseless. There is no reason / justification in awarding such exorbitant amount and the same is not based upon any legally admissible evidence or principles of law especially, since the complainant had prayed for  Rs 2000/- only as compensation and Rs 1000/- only towards cost of the proceedings. On going through the complainant, it can be seen that the prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs 2000/- as compensation and Rs 1000/- towards cost of the proceedings.       No reason / ground is stated by the district forum in giving direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs 10,000/- and cost of Rs 2000/- to the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the dispute involved in the complaint it can be seen that the compensation and cost ordered are on the higher side and those have to be reduced to Rs 2000/- and Rs 1000/- respectively as prayed for by the complainant in the complaint.  The direction of the District forum to pay interest, the case of default of payment within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order is set aside. The order passed by the district forum is to be modified to that effect.

 

        In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order passed by the district forum is modified as follows. The opposite parties /appellants are directed to pay Rs 2000/- as compensation and              Rs 1000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant / first respondent.

 

Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

 

At the time of filing of the appeal the appellants have deposited      Rs 6000/-. The first respondent / complainant is permitted to release the said amount on proper application to be adjusted towards compensation and cost ordered as above. Release the balance amount to the appellants on proper application.   

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH                      :JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT.R                         : MEMBER

 

BEENA KUMARI.A           : MEMBER

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.70/18

JUDGMENT DATED : 20.03.2019