PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)                     The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, the complainant had purchased ten Vodafone internet dongles on 17^th November, 2012 from the O.P.No.2.  From September-2013, the dongles started malfunctioning and the complainant was unable to upload the data on server.  The opponent was requested to solve the problem.  In spite of requests, the opponent could not solve the problem.  On 31^st October, 2013, the technical engineer of the opponent visited the complainant’s office and confirmed that the dongles were not working.  The staff of the complainant visited the office of the opponent for replacement of the dongles.  However, he was asked to furnish the purchase invoice and IMEI number of the dongles.  On 1^st November, 2013, the complainant received the email informing that technical engineer visited the office of the complainant and found the dongles faulty and those will be replaced.  The opponent failed to replace the dongles. The complainant raised the bill for the month of September-2013, October-2013 and November-2013. As the dongles were not working, the complainant has filed this complaint for refund of the bill amount of Rs.2,809/- for the month of September-2013 and to cancel the bills for the month of October-2013 and November-2013. The complainant also claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lakh for loss of business and harassment.  

2)                The O.P.No.1 appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that this opponent received the mail from the complainant on 2^nd October, 2013 about technical problems with working of dongles.  The technical person visited the complainant’s office on 31^st October, 2013 and found that there was issue with the dongles and the dongles need to be replaced.  The complainant failed to provide warranty card or bill or IMEI number.  Therefore, the dongles could not be replaced.  All the other allegations are denied.  As the complainant failed to provide warranty card or bill or IMEI number, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.

3)                The O.P.No.2 failed to appear though duly served.  Therefore, the matter was proceeded exparte against the O.P.No.2.

4)                After hearing the argument of complainant and the O.P.No.1, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

5) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the dongles from the opponents. According to the complainant, from September-2013, the dongles started malfunctioning and the complainant was unable to upload the data on server.  The technical engineer of the opponent visited the office of the complainant and confirmed the fault with the dongles and agreed to replace the dongles.  According to the complainant, the opponents failed to replace the dongles.  In the written statement, para 7, the O.P.No.1 has admitted that technical engineer visited the complainant’s office and confirmed that there is issue with the dongles and the dongles need to be replaced.  As per written statement of the O.P.No.1, the complainant failed to provide the warranty card or bill or IMEI number of the dongles.  Therefore, the dongles could not be replaced.  From the written statement of the O.P.No.1, it is clear that there was fault with the dongles and it was necessary to replace the dongles. Admittedly, the dongles were not replaced but the bills were raised.  The dongles were supplied by the opponents.  The opponents found fault with the dongles and agreed to replace the dongles.  Due to the fault in dongles, the complainant could not upload the data on server.  Thus, the complainant suffered due to faulty dongles.  In spite of it, the opponent raised bills.  Therefore, the opponent is lable to refund the bill amount to the complainant.  The opponents can not raise the bill for the month of Septembert-2013, October-2013 and November-2013 as the dongles were not working.  The opponents have not disputed the bill amount Rs.2,809/- paid by the complainant for the month of September-2013. The opponents are liable to refund it to the complainant.  Besides this, the opponents are not entitled for the bill amount for the month of October-2013 and November-2013.

6)                The complainant has also claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lakh towards loss of business and harassment.  The dongles could not be replaced as the complainant failed to provide warranty card or bill or IMEI number.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the compensation as prayed.  Thus, the complainant is entitled for refund of bill amount of Rs.2,809/-.  The bills for the month of October-2013 and November-2013 are to be cancelled.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.   

ORDER

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. The opponents are directed to refund Rs.2,809/- (Rs.Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Nine Only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. from 30^th May, 2014 till realization. 
3. The bills for the month of October-2013 and November-2013 are hereby quashed and cancelled.
4. The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
5. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced on 6^th January, 2016