State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharti Hexacom Ltd. vs Komal Prakash & Ors. on 4 December, 2012
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR FIRST APPEAL NO: 1134/2011 Bharti Hexacom Ltd., K-21, Malviya Marg, C-Scheme,Jaipur through authorised representative Mohendra Pal Singh Jadon ....Appellant/Non-petitioner no.2 Vs. 1. Shri Komal Prakash s/o Madal Lal Parasar, r/o Mangrop, Tehsil and Distt. Bhilwara. ....Respondent no.1/ Complainant 2. Gayatri Electronics Prop. Prem Singh r/o Near Bus Stand, Mangrop Tehsil and Distt. Bhilwara. ...Respondent no.2/ Non-Petitioner no.1 Date of order 04.12.2012 Before: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashok Pariher- President Mr.Anil Kumar Mishra-Member
Mrs.Sunita Ranka-Member Mr.Deepak Sharma counsel for the appellant Mr.Hemant Tak counsel for respondent no.1 2 BY THE STATE COMMISSION
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 04.04.2011 of the learned District Forum, Bhilwara ( hereinafter referred to as "the DCF" ) in Complaint no.63/3009 titled Shri Komal Prakash Vs. Gayatri Electronics & ors., whereby the complaint was allowed against the appellant and it was directed to start outgoing and incoming facility in the mobile of the respondent no.1/complainant ( hereinafter referred to as "
the complainant") and an amount of Rs. 5000/- was also awarded for mental agony.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant purchased a SIM having mobile no. 99503 36371 for his mobile from respondent no.2 Gayatri Electronics. He submitted the relevant papers to the respondent no.2, who forwarded the same to the appellant on 26.11.2008. The aforesaid mobile number worked continuously till 27.12.2008 and incoming facility was stopped on 28.12.2008 by the appellant. A complaint was filed before the learned DCF which allowed the complaint by the impugned order holding that the appellant's conduct amounted to deficiency in service.
33. The appellant preferred the present appeal on the ground that the SIM bearing mobile no. 99503 36371 was never issued in the name of the complainant. It was initially issued on 10.10.2007 to one Mr.Ramlal and then it was issued on 26.11.2008 to Mr.Ujjaval Lal and then on 30.11.2009 to Mr.Geesu Lal. The learned DCF erred in holding the appellant responsible for deficiency in service, though the aforesaid SIM was never issued to the complainant and hence the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent no.1 and perused the relevant record. Respondent no.2 did not appear despite service of notice on him.
5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a SIM bearing mobile no. 99503 36371 from respondent no.2 on 26.11.2008 and the relevant papers were sent to the appellant on the same day. Though the appellant submitted that the aforesaid mobile SIM no. 99503 36371 was never issued in the name of the complainant but as per the allegations of the complainant his mobile and SIM of the aforesaid number continuously worked from 26.11.2008 to 27.12.2008 i.e. for one month and suddenly incoming facility was stopped on 28.12.2008. From the reply of the appellant 4 and averments made in the complaint it appears that the SIM bearing mobile no. 99503 36371 was issued in the name of the complainant and Mr.Ujjaval Lal simultaneously on 26.11.2008. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid SIM and the mobile number is already in the name of some other person and hence outgoing and incoming facility on the said mobile number cannot be provided to the complainant and the appellant is ready to pay compensation for this inadvertant mistake. The learned DCF held the appellant responsible for deficiency in service on this count and awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental agony.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the matter pertains to the year 2008 and the complainant has got a new mobile number and another SIM for his use as the disputed mobile no. 99503 36371 is already in the name of some other person and he is using it for last three or four years. so it will not be possible to provide call facilities in the aforesaid SIM in the name of the complainant. Though the complainant has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of the compensation but when the appellant is ready and willing to pay the compensation for its negligence in issuing the disputed SIM in the name of two persons simultaneously, we deem it proper to modify the impugned judgment and enhance the amount of compensation.
57. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the matter and in the interest of justice the impugned judgment dated 04.04.2011 of the learned DCF is modified to the extent that the complainant/respondent no.1 will be entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Thousand ) as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5000/- ( Rupees Five Thousand ) as cost of the proceedings. The order directing the appellant to provide incoming and outgoing facility on the mobile no. 99503 36371 to the complainant is set aside. The impugned judgment of the learned DCF is modified as aforesaid and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Member Member President nm BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR FIRST APPEAL NO: 1227/2011 Ved Prakash s/o L.R.Mishr, r/o Panchmukhi Balaji Road, Alanpur, Distt. Sawaimadhopur.
....Appellant/Complainant Vs. Nokia Care Centre, Opp.Gautam Ashram, Bajaria, Sawaimadhopur ...Respondent / Non-Petitioner Date of order 04.12.2012 Before:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashok Pariher- President Mr.Anil Kumar Mishra-Member Mrs.Sunita Ranka-Member Appellant/complainant present in-person Inspite of service none present on behalf of the respondent BY THE STATE COMMISSION The appeal is directed against the order dated 18.05.2011 2 passed by the District Forum, Sawaimadhopur by which the complaint in regard to mechanical defect in Nokia Mobile set has been dismissed.
The complainant had purchased a Nokia N 70 M Blue Tooth mobile set at the cost of Rs. 11,200/-. The mobile set was presented to the respondent for repair for which Rs. 3309/- was charged by the respondent vide receipt dated 13.08.2009. The original copy of the receipt has been placed on record. However, since the mobile set was not properly repaired it has been contended by the appellant that the respondent asked for further Rs.1500/- for complete repair. Since even the display was not showing on the mobile set, the complainant showed it to another mobile care centre which in writing informed the complainant that the defective set cannot be repaired. The report of the other care centre has also been placed on record.
Inspite of service neither any reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent nor anybody appeared to counter the contentions of the complainant as such there was nothing to disbelieve the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint. The District Forum in a very casual cursory manner dismissed the complaint only on the ground that the complainant had failed to prove any 3 deficiency of service provided by the respondent. The appellant/complainant has been deprived of the mobile service since August 2009. Inspite of service none has put an appearance on behalf of the respondent in the present appeal also.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.05.2011 passed by the District Forum,Sawaimadhopur is set aside.
Consequently the complaint is also allowed and the respondent is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Thousand ) to the appellant/complainant with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum i.e. 11.09.2009. The above payment be made to the appellant/complainant within thirty days. There will be no order as to costs.
Member Member President nm