Reliance infocomm

adminadmin Administrator
edited August 2014 in Mobile
ORDER
By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,
1. Complainant availed mobile connection from opposite party under the Dirubai Ambani Pioneer Offer Scheme by remitting Rs.21,000/- by way of demand draft on 08-7-2003. As per the offer complainant was given a free mobile phone handset worth Rs.10,500/-. This phone was offered a warranty of one year and insurance coverage for replacement and repair for three years. The handset developed snags from March, 2005 onwards and became totally defective in May, 2005. Complainant approached several service centres of opposite party to get the handset repaired but in vain. Complainant came to understand that the company has stopped manufacturing of the said model due to inherent manufacturing defects. Complainant issued lawyer notice and requested opposite parties to replace the set. Neither did the opposite parties reply nor did they replace the set. That after May, 2005 complainant was unable to use the set and he is entitled to refund of the deposit as per the terms and conditions stated in the offers. Opposite parties have not replaced the handset nor refunded the balance deposit. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service.


2. First opposite party has filed version denying that complainant has not availed a mobile connection under any scheme by paying Rs.21,000/-. It is submitted that complainant selected the phone/handset at his own will. That at the purchase a warranty was given by the manufacturer of the handset and this was assured by National Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai, by an agreement made by opposite party with Insurance Company to protect the interest of customers. Aggrieved complainants can claim replacement or get the handset repaired free of cost subject to the terms and conditions of warranty and policy. This right was informed to the complainant on receiving his complaint. That opposite party offered to provide another handset at a very low price which was not accepted by complainant. That complainant has not approached the manufacturer or the Insurance Company with any claim. The complaint filed without impleading manufacturer and Insurance Company is bad for non-jointer. That name of opposite party has been got amended to Reliance Communications Ltd. as per order dated, 01-9-2006 of High Court of Gujarat. That there is no deficiency in service.



3. Second opposite party though entered appearance through counsel has not filed any version.


4. Supplementel third opposite party was impleaded as per orders in IA-130/08. Third opposite party though entered appearance through counsel has not filed any version. The names of 1st and 2nd opposite parties have been amended as per orders in IA-129/08 in regard to the contention raised by first opposite party in the version.


5. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A4 marked for complainant. Counter affidavit filed by first opposite party. No documents marked on behalf of opposite parties. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.
6. Points for consideration:-
      1. (i) Whether opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service.
        (ii) If so, reliefs and costs.


7. Point (i) and (ii):-

It is the say of complainant that he availed a mobile connection with handset from opposite party by paying Rs.21,000/-. The handset which had warranty for a year became defective within a few months of it's purchase. Ext.A1 is the counterfoil of the demand draft taken by complainant on 3-6-2003 for Rs.21,052/- in favour of opposite party. Ext.A2 is the brochure of the Dirubhai Ambani Pioneer Offer. In Ext.A2 it is stated that a digital mobile phone worth Rs.10,500/- with three years insurance and 12 months warranty is free. It also stated that if the consumer wishes to exit the


connection the balance of refundable deposit after deducting any dues will be returned. As per the provisions to exit, if the exit is after 90 days, Rs.40/- per month for the balance of 36 months will be deducted before returning the post dated cheque. 1st opposite party has admitted that complainant approached with the grievance of defective handset. It is the case of 1st opposite party that complainant was offered with another handset of low price which the complainant did not accept. Ext.A3 and A4 are notices issued by complainant to 1st and 2nd opposite parties on 18-8-2005 demanding replacement of the defective handset. Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 together with the admissions by first opposite party proves the case of complainant. Third opposite party who is the insurer has not produced any documents showing the terms and conditions of policy. The fact that the handset was insured is undisputed. Since the handset became defective during the warranty period itself complainant is entitled to the replacement of the handset or the value equal to that of the handset. Third opposite party being the insured is liable to pay this amount.


8. Complainant also claims refund from the deposit as per terms and conditions of the offer. He contends that as the handset became fully defective and unusable from May, 2005 it has to be considered that he has made exit from the connection from May, 2005 onwards. Complainant thus claims Rs.17,200/- as refund from the deposit of Rs.21,000/- after deducting the membership fee of Rs.3,000/- and rs.40/- per month for balance 36 months. From the materials placed before us the claim of the complainant is tenable and genuine. Opposite parties have not adduced any contra evidence to disbelieve these affirmation of the complainant. Complainant has established a case in his favour. We find opposite parties deficient in service

9. In the result we allow the complaint and make the following orders:-
      1. (i) Third opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.10,500/- (Rupees Ten thousand and five hundred only) to complainant, along with interest @ 6% per annum from date of complaint till payment.
        (ii) First and second opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to pay Rs.17,200/- to the complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum from date of complaint till payment.
        (iii) The time limit for compliance of this order is fixed as one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
        (iv) We make no separate order as to costs.
  1. Dated this 12th day of March, 2009.
«1

Comments

  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    ORDER
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Present: Smt.Seena.H, President[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]C.C.No.136/2008[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]P.N.Madhavan Namboodiri,[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Nelliyeri Mana,[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]South Panamanna,[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Ottappalam,[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Palakkad.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif](Party in person) - Complainant [/FONT]

    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Vs[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]The Manager,[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Reliance Communications,[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Mangalm Tower,[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Opp Town Bus Stand, Palakkad. - Opposite party[/FONT]

    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]O R D E R[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member[/FONT]


    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]The complainant paid Rs.2050/- and purchased a Reliance Land phone set of Classic CWP820 (Connection No.3207813) from M/s.U Connection, Near Webben Electricals, Palakkad Road, Ottapalam on 20.11.2007 from the Ottapalam branch of the opposite party. The Proprietor of the firm orally stated that there will be free lifelong incoming calls and the amount has to be paid only for out going calls. In short there will be 15 years free incoming service. After one year, on 20.11.2008, the opposite party disconnected the land phone services without issuing any notice. Both incoming and outgoing services were blocked. When the complainant informed the same to the proprietor he asked the complainant to pay Rs.100/- for reconnection. Amount was paid by the complainant. Even then the outgoing facility was not restored. According to the complainant this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The above acts of opposite party caused pain and mental agony to the complainant. Hence complainant prays before this forum for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as damages for mental agony.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]2. After admitting the complaint notice was served on the opposite party. But opposite party has not appeared before the forum. Hence was set exparte. [/FONT]


    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]3. Complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents. Ext.A1 was marked. Matter was heard.[/FONT]


    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]4. Issues for consideration;[/FONT]
    1. [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?[/FONT]
    2. [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]If so, what is the reliefs and cost?[/FONT]


    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]5. Issue No.1 and 2: We perused the affidavit and relevant documents on record. The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a land phone connection through the Ottapalam branch of the opposite party. Ext.A1 evidences payment of Rs.2050/- dt.20/11/07 as stated by complainant. It does not reveal the fact that the opposite party or the branch office of the opposite party has issued the same. However it can be seen that the same has been issued on behalf of the Reliance Communications. The definite case of the complainant is that outgoing facility was disconnected without any prior notice. Further on payment of Rs.100/- as requested by opposite party, the same has not been restored. We are of the view that opposite party ought to have informed the complainant before withdrawing the out going facility. The act of the opposite party is against the principles of natural justice. Further the opposite party neglected to appear before the forum even after receipt of notice. Hence the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged. We also find no reason to disbelieve the facts stated by the complainant in the affidavit.[/FONT]


    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]6. In view of the above discussions we hold the view that the act of opposite party amounts to clear deficiency of service and opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. In our view the object of awarding compensation in favour of the complainant is to see that the opposite party will not repeat such things in trade or business in future.[/FONT]

    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]7. Hence complaint allowed. We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.[/FONT]


    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]8. Pronounced in the open court on this 27th day of March, 2009 [/FONT]
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    ORDER
    By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President

    The case of the complainants is as follows:


    Complainant is an Orthopaedic Surgeon working in the Thrissur Co-operative Hospital at Thrissur. The complainant had availed Mobile phoneconnection from the respondents bearing Telephone No.9387101884 on 1/6/2003. At the time of availing connection the complainant had submitted twelve post dated cheques of Rs.1800/- towards part payment of monthly rentals and bill amount. On 16/5/05 the connection was disconnected without any reason. The complainant enquired about the disconnection to the opposite parties customer care center on the same day, but the complainant did not get any satisfactory explanation from them. So the complainant issued a letter on 17/5/05 to the 2nd opposite party stating the facts and requested them to reconnect the connection. The 2nd opposite party replied to the said notice on 27/5/05 stating that the cheques issued by the complainant at the time of subscription were all MICR cheques and so the bank did not honour the same. The complainant after receipt of this reply enquired with his bankers about the facts, but the complainant’s bank would said that all the presented cheques by the opposite parties were honoured without any hassle. The complainant has suffered a lot since the disconnection of telephone affected very badly to his carrier. Hence this complaint.


    2.The version in brief is that the complainant availed the Mobile connection from this opposite parties on 12/2/03 and not 1/6/03. It is true that the complainant had handed over 12 post dated cheques at the time of availing the phone connection. The amount covering the cheque was not only for the purpose of rental and bill amount stated in the complaint. Before the barring of the outgoing calls intimation was given to the complainant. The reason for disconnection was due to non payment of monthly charges. At the time of disconnection the outstanding was Rs.1,628.84. The complainant made default from March 2005 onwards. The complainant was at default in honouring post dated cheque dated 11/4/05. There is no mental trauma and loss of reputation. There is no deficiency in service. Hence dismiss.

    3. The points for consideration are:
    1)Is there any deficiency in service?
    2)If so reliefs and costs ?

    4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P11 and Exhibits R1 to R3.

    5. Points : The case of complainant is that the mobile phone connection of the complainant was suddenly disconnected by the respondent without any reason. On enquiry it was replied by the respondents that the cheques issued by the complainant were dishonoured. According to the complainant at the time of connection he has issued 12 post dated cheques and there was sufficient balance in his account to honour the cheques. In the counter the respondents stated that the complainant made default from March 2005 onwards and the complainant was at default in honouring post dated cheque dated 11/4/05. According to them the outstanding due amount was Rs.1628.84 at the time of disconnection.

    6. We have perused the documents produced by both parties. According to the complainant the act of respondents is illegal land without any reason. According to him there was sufficient balance in his account and there will be no question of dishonour of cheques. According to the respondent on 11/4/05 cheque was bounced. Exhibit P8 is the statement of account which shows that at that time there was sufficient funds in his account and the contention of the respondent is baseless. The respondents had disconnected the service on 16//5/05 and at that time also there was sufficient balance and the disconnection on the basis of bouncing of cheque was illegal. Moreover as per Exhibit P6 there was no case of cheque return from the Savings Bank account of complainant between the period of 1/2/05 and 31/5/05. The allegation of respondents is that on 11/4/05 cheque was bounced. The acts of the respondent in disconnecting the Mobile phone connection alleging nonpayment of charges even after payment, is a serious deficiency in service. Before disconnection no notice was also served. Respondent is alleging that notice was served, but no copy is produced.

    7. The complainant being an Orthopaedic surgeon had to suffer due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the respondents. So the complainant is entitled for a compensation for the mental trauma he has suffered. The complainant is seeking Rs.25,000/- for the loss of reputation. But this relief will not sustain according to us, because there is no possibility of loss of reputation.

    8. In the result complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation with costs Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) within one month.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    ORDER

    COMPLAINANT Sri.Raman Subba Rao,S/o M.H.Ramaswamy,Age 46 years,Managing Director,Canarys Automations Pvt Ltd.No.135, 7th Main, 4th Block, Jayanagar,Bangalore – 560 011.Advocate – Sri.Ganapathi

    V/s.

    OPPOSITE PARTY Reliance Infocomm Services,Reliance House,N.H-4, 8th Mile,Hesaraghatta Cross,Bangalore – 560 057.

    By Branch Manager.Advocate – Sri.Shankar S.Bhat O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.18,600/- with interest and so also the compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant opted to purchase a new colour handset with post paid mobile connection from OP for a total cost of Rs.39,000/-, he paid the same on 05.02.2003. But thereafter OP failed to deliver the handset within a reasonable time. On the other hand they expressed their inability and refunded only Rs.15,000/- promising him to return remaining amount of Rs.24,000/- within a short period. OP delivered ordinary mobile handset to the complainant with new pre paid connection to his mobile No.93412 31953. Thereafter returned only Rs.5,400/- in December 2006 as against balance of Rs.24,000/-.


    Though complainant made repeated requests and demands to OP to refund the remaining amount by addressing several e-mails, letters and personal visit it went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. OP arbitrarily deducted Rs.3,000/- as deposit and another Rs.9,000/- for usage of the said phone for 18 months and Rs.3,600/- as club membership.
    Complainant never consented for the same. Under the circumstances complainant felt deficiency in service. Accordingly he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within his knowledge. OP never promised the complainant to deliver the colour handset as contended. On the other hand complainant has obtained the connection under certain scheme in the month of February 2003 and migrated to pre paid on 26.06.2004. With all that this complaint is filed after lapse of four years. Hence complaint is barred by time.

    It is further contended that complainant was the subscriber for plan PCN 1. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement OP collected the charges. They alleged DAPO scheme was introduced by the OP which has got certain provisions with regard to the payment of the tariff. Complainant has opted for services through DAE accordingly OP collected the charges. The other allegations are baseless. As per the contract and tariff opted by the complainant he was eligible for refund of only Rs.5,400/- after deducting the other charges.

    So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Claim is highly imaginary. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.



    3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this

    complaint are as under:

    Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

    Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed?

    Point No. 3 :- To what Order?


    5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:

    Point No.1:- In Negative

    Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order.


    R E A S O N S


    6. Though it is much contended by the complainant that OP promised to provide him new colour handset with post paid connection and collected Rs.39,000/- in February 2003, for this contention basically there is no proof. On the other hand OP has specifically stated that the complainant paid Rs.39,000/- under certain scheme then got the connection migrated to pre paid on 26.06.2004. Of course complainant has not disputed the migration. Further complainant says that when OP failed to deliver the handset, it refunded and returned only Rs.15,000/- and out of Rs.24,000/- another Rs.5,400/- were returned in December 2006 rest of the amount is not returned in spite of his repeated requests and demands. Hence he felt deficiency in service.


    7. According to the OP, complainant was a subscriber of plan PCN 1 and he is bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. DAPO scheme introduced by the OP covers PCN 1, customer were to pay Rs.21,000/- as upfront payment for entire three years i.e., Rs.3,000/- as connection charges which is not refundable and one time club membership and Rs.500 X 36 months for the said period. Break up Rs.500/- per month included Rs.240/- as rent and Rs.160/- as usage for 400 minutes and Rs.100/- privilege charges. Complainant having understood all these terms and conditions and payments opted for the said plan. When that is so, complainant is bound by the contract, now he can’t simply says that he has paid Rs.39,000/- as OP promised him to give new handset. On the other hand OP is able to substantiate that complainant opted for PCN 1 scheme and he is bound by the terms and conditions. 8. What made the complainant to wait for all these years though he changed his plan and migrated pre paid connection in June 2004 is not known. Suddenly after lapse of 4 years or so he has come up with this complaint. OP after calculating the necessary charges to be paid by the complainant refunded Rs.5,400/-. That act of the OP can’t be termed as deficiency in service. In our view claim of the complainant appears to be baseless. It is specifically stated by the OP that the scheme and plan which complainant has opted stood closed in the year 2006 itself after the expiry of 3 years. With all that now the complainant has come up with this complaint in the year 2008. Closure of the said scheme and plan is not disputed by the complainant. Viewed from any angle complaint appears to be devoid of merits.


    There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following:



    O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.

  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    1- M/s Prominent Exports International, G.S. Complex, Basant Road, Partap Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Partners.

    2- Gurcharan Singh s/o Sh. Iqbal Sigh, partner;

    3- Bikramjit Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh, partner;



    of M/s Prominent Exports International, G.S. Complex, Basant Road, Partap Chowk, Ludhiana.

    Versus

    1- Reliance Industries Limited, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Block E-Gr Floor Module Wing-2, Navi Mumbai-400709, through authorized signatory.

    2- Reliance Infocomm Limited, SCO No.135-136, Sector 0-C, Chandigarh, through its authorized signatory.

    3- Reliance Infocomm Limited, Reliance communications India Limited Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Authorized Signatory/Branch Manager.


    1- Complainants no.2 & 3, who are partners of complainant no.1, had taken in the name of complainant no.2, mobile connection bearing no.93168-88696 from the opposite party. Firm of the complainant is dealing in export business, to earn their livelihood. Complainant no.3 Sh. Bikramjit Singh between 18.4.2007 to 29.4.2007and 14.5.2007, went to Hongkong and China, carrying his mobile. During the tour period, he received calls, but was stunned to see that call identity number was not displayed on the screen of the mobile phone. Due to which, he was forced to attend each and every call, without verification of the number. As a result, huge call charges were charged by opposite party from him. By doing so, they are claimed in this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, guilty of rendering deficient services. Because caller ID was included in the package of his mobile phone. This deficiency was brought to the notice of opposite party, but of no avail. Again on 18.6.2007, complainant made written complaint to opposite party which was not cared.

    Complainant no.3 was in U.K. and informed that his telephone was disconnected by opposite party, without giving any notice. Now, opposite party has sent bill for Rs.58173.65 which he claimed huge amount illegally claimed. As the bill included call charges of the disputed calls, which complainant no.3 was forced to attend during visit to Hongkong and China, on account of non displaying of caller identity number on mobile screen. So, alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite party, through this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, sought directions, for restoration of the phone and pay him Rs.50000/- compensation for harassment, to cancel bill dated 1.6.2007.

    2- Name of opposite party no.1 was deleted as per statement of ld. counsel for complainant, made on 17.10.2007.

    3- Opposite parties no.2 & 3 in their reply, accused complainant of suppressing material facts and claimed that the Fora has no jurisdiction. As under application of the complainant, only Bombay Courts have jurisdiction. Complaint is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties. It is admitted that mobile connection has been taken by the complainant, but disputed and denied any deficiency in service on their part. However, claimed that complainant no.3 is not a consumer under them, as he did not subscribe the connection himself. Connection was applied by complainant no.1. Further denied that inclusion of caller ID package was part of the connection. Clip facility is a value added service.

    The clip facility is visiting network dependent services. If the network operating in the visiting country, does not support the clip facility, then clip facility can not be provided for the user. Providing such facility in foreign country was beyond their control and for no fault of their, they can not be blamed. Complainant was footed with bill dated 1.6.2007 for Rs.58173.65, but he failed to make payment of the same. Another bill dated 1.7.2007 for Rs.70375.29 was issued which was also not paid. He also failed to make payment of the bill dated 1.8.2007 and 1.9.2007, despite direction of the Fora vide order dated 17.7.2007. He being defaulter, can not be considered to be a consumer. No harassment or loss was suffered by their act or conduct by the complainant. He has filed false complaint. Under the contract, they were entitled to suspend, discontinue, and terminate mobile facility, due to non payment of the consumption bill.

    4- To support their claims, contesting parties adduced evidence by way of affidavits and documents. We have heard ld. counsel for parties and scanned the documents and other material placed on the file carefully.

    5- First grievance of the complainant is that when he was in Hongkong and China, screen of the mobile failed to display user ID telephone number and thereby, was forced to attend unwanted calls, which inflated the bill. But mobile connection of the opposite party, was taken in India. Caller identity did not appear in screen of phone of the complainant, during his foreign jaunts. For such, opposite party can not defaulted or blamed, by not rendering proper services. As such display of caller ID number, was the job of those foreign mobile service providers. If for some technical reason or otherwise, such Foreign Service provider could not provide caller ID number, opposite party can not be blamed. So, we feel that opposite party would not be guilty of causing harassment on this count to the complainant or that due to such reason, user bill of phone of complainant, got inflated. There appears no nexus in such allegations and the bill of the complainant on account of use of the mobile.

    6- Ex.C1/A is the bill dated 1.6.2007 issued by the opposite party to complainant for Rs.58173/-. Opposite party have placed on the record, print out of the mobile of the complainant, copy of which is Annexure-R2, reflecting that he had used the mobile to the extent of amounting to charges of Rs.58173.65.

    7- No doubt, complainant had issued notice Ex.C1/B to the opposite party. But the same appears to be meaningless, as we find no deficiency on part of the opposite party. Because failure of appearance of caller ID number during foreign tour, would not be a deficiency in service on their part, who provided him service in the country. On technical reason or otherwise, if number of caller ID did not appear on screen of his mobile, opposite party can not be blamed for it.

    8- Now second allegation of the complainant is that when he was in U.K., found that his mobile connection was suspended by the opposite party. Whereas, opposite party claimed that dues qua using of phone were not paid by complainant to the opposite party and they were entitled to suspend mobile facility of the complainant. Complainant himself has placed on record, bill Ex.C1/A of Rs.58173.65, but led no evidence that had paid the same to the opposite party. If on account of non payment of bill, his incoming or outgoing facility was debarred, opposite party can not be held guilty of not rendering proper services to its own consumer.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Sh.Bimal Kumar S/o Sh. Kailash Chand, resident of Ward No.18, Arya Samaj street, Mansa.

    VERSUS

    1.

    M/s Bhaskar Enterprises, Near Civil Hospital, Talwandi Saboo, District Bathinda.

    2.

    Reliance Communications Limited, 'H' Block, 1st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, New Mumbai, 400 710, State of Maharastra.


    Kailash Chand, a resident of Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), against the opposite parties, giving them direction to replace the Sim Cards purchased by him from OP No.1 and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, and costs of filing of the complaint in the sum of Rs.1,500/-, on the averments, which may briefly be described as under:

    2. That the complainant purchased Sim Cards No.09023712162 and 09023141271 from OP No.1 on 17.2.2009. Both the Sim Cards purchased by him went out of order after some days. On being approached by the complainant, OP No.1 did not pay any heed to his request to rectify the defect or replace the Sim Cards. The complainant also made complaints to concerned distributor of the manufacturing company in the area, but he also failed to take any action because of which he has been subjected to mental and physical harassment and has incurred avoidable expenses for filing of the instant complaint.

    3. On being put to notice, the OP No.1 filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant is not a consumer under the answering opposite party because he did not purchase any Sim Card from him; that business is run by the answering opposite party at Talwandi Saboo, District Bathinda and OP No.2 is running his business at Bombay, but neither of them has any branch office at Mansa, nor any cause of action has arisen to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, as such, complaint is not maintainable in this Forum; that complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and it being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs and complainant is not entitled to reliefs prayed for, as he has misrepresented

    Contd........3

    : 3 :


    the material facts. On merits, it is denied that complainant has purchased Sim Cards from the answering opposite party. It is submitted that complainant has not produced any bill showing purchase of Sim Cards from the answering opposite party, but at the same time it is mentioned that there is no defect in the Sim Cards purchased by the complainant, which might have been locked by him, by mistake. It is submitted that the complainant has never lodged any complaint with either of the opposite parties regarding any defect in his Sim Cards, purchased by him. Rest of the averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs.

    4. The OP No.2 filed separate written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that complainant has suppressed material facts from the knowledge of this Forum; that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint because none of the opposite parties is carrying on business at Mansa; that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that complaint is false and vexatious and no injury or loss has been caused to the complainant, as such, his complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is submitted that complainant may be made to strict proof regarding purchase of Sim Cards and defects therein and answering opposite party has activated the connection of the complainant after subscription, but he never conveyed any intimation regarding any defect therein. It is contended that had the complainant given any intimation about the Sim Cards purchased by him, then the answering opposite party might have replaced with new Sim Cards free of costs. He has filed the instant complaint to score wrongful gain. It is also submitted that the answering opposite party is still ready and willing to replace the Sim Cards Contd........4

    : 4 :


    if found defective. Rest of the averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs.

    5. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Exhibit C-1, Sim Cards envelops ExhibitC-2 and C-3 and pamphlet issued by the opposite parties Exhibit C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Megh Raj, Proprietor Exhibit OP-1 and closed evidence, whereas learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 closed evidence after tendering into evidence affidavit of Sh.Mast Ram Deswal Exhibit OP-1 and Terms and Conditions for supply of Sim Cards Exhibit OP-2.

    6. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance.

    7. At the outset, Learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh.P.K.Singla & Sh.Avtar Singh, Advocates have jointly argued, that as mentioned in the complaint itself, both the opposite parties carry on their business outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, as such, controversy in the complaint cannot be adjudicated by this Forum and complaint is bound to be dismissed on this technical ground.

    8. On the other hand, complainant has submitted that he had purchased the Sim Cards from an Agent of the opposite parties carrying on business at Mansa because of which he has filed the complaint in this Forum. The complainant has urged that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

    9. We do not find merit in the argument advanced by the complainant, because he has not produced on record even an iota of Contd........5

    : 5 :


    evidence regarding purchase of Sim Cards by him from the Agent of the opposite parties carrying on business at Mansa. Even he has not disclosed the said fact in his complaint and in his affidavit Ext.C-1, tendered in evidence by him. In the course of arguments, complainant has also conceded that he gave intimation regarding defect to the OP No.1 in the Sim Cards at Talwandi Saboo, in District Bathinda. The OP No.2 is carrying on its business at Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra, as mentioned in the head note of the complaint. There is no evidence showing that cause of action wholly or in part has been arisen to the complainant in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Section 11 (2) of the Act provides that,

    10. A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:-

    (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

    (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or caries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

    Contd........6

    : 6 :


    (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

    11. The bare reading of the above said provisions goes to show that complaint can be instituted in the District Fora, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction either of the opposite parties carries on business or has a branch office or cause of action has accrued in favour of the person aggrieved wholly or in part. This Forum cannot usurp jurisdiction, which does not vest in it, especially when opposite parties have taken specific objection against the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum in their written versions.

    12. In the light of our above discussion, we are constrained to hold that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and for the said reason we do not consider it prudent to embark upon merits of the case and evidence led by the parties.

    13. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint with liberty to the complainant to avail remedy open to him before the appropriate Forum. He will have right to seek exclusion of time spent before this Forum, for the purpose of condonation of delay, as permissible, under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their costs.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Shri Amin Chand S/O Shri Sumer Singh,

    M/S A.C. Tailors, Near Railway Station,

    Summer Hill, Shimla-5.

    … Complainant.
    Versus

    1. M/S Reliance India Mobile,

    Reliance Infocom Services

    Plot No.17, Industrial Area, Phase-1,

    Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

    2. M/S Excel Marketing Corporation,

    Akant Bhawan, Khalini Shimla-2

    Through its Sales Manager Shri Dev Raj.

    3. Shri Nitin Sharma,

    Sale Manager,

    Excel Marketing Corporatin,

    Akant Bhawan, Khalini, Shimla-2.
    …Opposite Parties
    O R D E R:

    Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the OPs. The complainant avers that in order to supplement his source of income, he installed STD/PCO having connection No.3090603 on 12.01.2005. It is averred that the aforesaid PCO system was not having proper signal, as such, he brought the said fact to the notice of the OPs, but the OPs did nothing in the matter and hence suffered loss. Hence, this complaint, claiming compensation against the OPs for rendering deficient service.

    2. The OPs, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, and status of the complainant as a consumer. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was allotted MDN No.3090603 for PCO connection, but it is denied that the PCO was not functioning properly. Rather, it is contended that the complainant is not consumer and as such cannot file and maintain the present complaint before this Forum. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

    3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

    4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

    5. No contest has emerged between the parties at lis over the fact that the complainant is a franchise under the OPs. The above fact having hence, remained un-impeached, the complainant, hence, being a licensee or franchise holder of the OPs, is enjoined to perform two functions; (a) establish and runs a Public Call Officer; and (b) collect the call charges on behalf of the licensers. For rendering these services, the franchise holder gets commission from the licensor, even if, he has been described as the hirer of the PCO, would not signify that he, is, rendering service to the licensor, for, consideration. Accordingly, the complainant who is a licensor, is contended to be running a STD/PCO, would not become a ‘consumer’ of the grantor, of, the franchise, which is, the OPs. In coming to the above conclusion, we are supported by the case law reported in III (1995) CPJ 67 (NC) in case Union of India & ors versus Ramesh Kumar.

    6. In the light of the above, the franchise holder who is maintaining and running a STD/PCO, is, not a “consumer”, as, defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence, is not entitled to maintain the complaint under the Act, hence, the same is dismissed.
  • Advocate.soniaAdvocate.sonia Senior Member
    edited September 2009
    Shri Man Mohan Singh
    … Complainant.
    Versus
    Reliance Infocomm Limited & another
    … Opposite Parties
    ________________________________________________________

    O R D E R:

    Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) (Oral) President:- This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that that the telephone bills Annexure C-2 & C-3 respectively appended to the complaint, are, excessive as well as inflated, as, they pertain to the period of time when he had sought disconnection of his telephone connection from the OP, who, however, failed to do so. The learned counsel for the OP has seriously refuted the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

    2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OP, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bills, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered calls of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such calls shall render, its, finding. It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OP proceeds to conduct an inquiry it shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry.

    The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record. In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OP, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh. With these observations, the complaint is finally disposed of.
  • kpsc81kpsc81 Junior Member
    edited December 2009
    My application for conversion from prepaid to post paid (9018301309)connection is pending since last week however I was assured of immediate restoration of post paid connection after completion of verification of the applicant by the concerned person dealing on the behalf of the company. While making quarries in this regards after12 days of wait. I have been given ridicules reason for such delay as the address is not confirmed. Person who visited to the given address could not spot my residence whereas the address is clear in the form and in the residential proof attached there with too. More ever I had received my prepaid SIM card at the same address without ay hesitation .Hence the reason is not satisfactory my prepaid connection is not working as for as out going call are concern therefore I am not able to contact my nears and dears and can not make official calls too .So kindly do the immediate action over it and restore my postpaid facility to my already subscribed SIM Card and provide customer satisfactory service of which the company committed to.
    This Time I am not able to make out going call.

    regards
    krishna pratap singh
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    C.C.No.646 of 2007
    BETWEEN:
    Battini Venkata Rajesh,

    S/o.Shyam Prasad,

    R/o. Flat No.4, Vaibhav Apartments,

    2/3, Brodiepet, Guntur. … Complainant

    AND
    1. The Manager,

    Kumar Net Works,

    Door No.6-4-1078/08,

    LIC Building, 4th line, Main Road,

    Arundelpet, Guntur.

    2. Reliance Infocomm Services,

    (A Division of Reliance Industries Ltd.)

    40-26-2B, Sriram Nagar,

    Labbipet, Vijayawada – 520010.

    3. Reliance Infocomm Services,

    H-Block, 1st floor,

    Derubai Ambani,

    Knowledge city,

    Navi Mumbai – 400 710. … Opposite parties





    This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 12-11-09 in the presence of Sri B.S.Raja Sekhar, Advocate for complainant and of Sri M.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for 3rd opposite party, OPs 1&2 are set exparte, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:



    O R D E R

    Per Sri T.ANJANEYULU, PRESIDENT:

    This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking direction on the opposite parties to delete his name and address from the records in telephone bills, to restrain in future from sending such kind of bills in his name and to award compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony.

    The case of the complainant in brief is that

    He was having mobile telephone connection of Reliance phone bearing No.9326548191 from the opposite party which was obtained on 12-09-03. After using sometime he got it disconnected on 06-11-06 by paying last bill amount of Rs.595/-. But thereafter, to his surprise he was receiving bills dt.11-01-07, 11-02-07 and 11-04-07 with changed phone No.9392456764 in his name and address. Therefore he contacted the opposite party but the opposite party not replied in proper way and on the other hand threatened him to do whatever he likes, as such he suffered mental agony and got issued legal notice dt.01-05-07 to stop sending such bills in future, pay compensation for mental agony and legal expenses. Hence, the complaint.

    The 3rd opposite party filed its version formally denying allegations about alleged ill-treatment and threatening of complainant by their staff. It is admitted that earlier, the complainant was having connection and got it disconnected. However, they put forth that sending telephone bills of one Sri Maddi Hanumantha Rao at the address of complainant may be due to mistake because of entries in the record relating to address of said person and the same would be rectified. It is submitted that the demands made by complainant are unsustainable and they reveal the motive of complainant to blackmail the opposite party for want of compensation. There is no relationship in between the complainant and opposite parties as it ceased by 06-11-06 itself. If he had any grievance, the same can be settled before Civil Court but not before this Forum. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

    Both sides have filed their respective affidavits. On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A9 are marked. No documents are marked for opposite parties.

    Now the point for determination is that

    1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought for?

    POINT No.1

    This dispute pertains to telephone connection No. 9326548191. The dispute is not much in this case. It is admitted fact that the complainant was having telephone connection (Reliance Mobile) bearing No. 9326548191 from September, 2003 till November, 2006, and on 06-11-06 he got it disconnected. There is no dispute about consumption charges with regard to above referred telephone. The main ground of the complainant is that he started receiving bills in the month of January, 2007, February, 2007 and April, 2007 at his address with changed telephone No.9392456764 in the name of one Maddi Hanumantha Rao. On receipt of the same he had approached the opposite parties and informed them as to how the bills are being sent at his address with changed telephone number. Certainly, this would cause some anxiety, confusion and as well as agony. Sending of such kind bills in the name of Maddi Hanumantha Rao at the address of complainant is not disputed by opposite parties, but they say due to mistake in the record relating to the address, this might have happen. This shows that the opposite parties taking the issue in a lighter vein. But it cannot be that simple. This was not a solitary incident. Soon after disconnection of earlier telephone number, the complainant started receiving such kind of bills continuously for 3 months. When he asked about the same, the opposite parties were careless and on the other hand threatened him with dire consequences. However, the opposite parties deny such kind of allegations. But having observed the same, the complainant got issued legal notice in the month of May, 2007 expressing his anxiety, agony and demanding the opposite parties to stop such kind of bills in future and also pay legal expenses apart from compensation.

    Though the opposite parties admitted its mistake, put forth the case that the dispute can not be entertained by this Forum for want of jurisdiction as there is no relationship as consumer and service provider. The cause of action in filing this dispute does arise from receipt of bills dt.11-01-07, 11-02-07 and 11-04-07 which were issued by opposite parties. Had the complainant not received such kind of bills at his address with changed telephone number, there would not have any complaint before this Forum. Therefore the opposite party is estopped from raising such kind of objection.

    Having observed the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to direct the opposite parties not to send such kind of bills at the address of complainant in future. However, we decline to grant any compensation as matter is not that serious, which would cause mental agony, pain and suffering except anxiety.

    In the result the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

    1. The opposite parties are hereby directed not to send any kind of bills in the name of Maddi Hanumantha Rao at the address of complainant.

    2. Further we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.500/- towards legal expenses within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization.

    Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 19th day of November, 2009.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    consumer case(CC) No. CC/06/44

    Srijit Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    Reliance Infocome Ltd.
    ...........Respondent(s)


    BEFORE:


    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




    ORDER

    In the Court of the

    Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

    8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.



    CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 44 / 2006



    1) Srijit Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,

    23/1, Keyatala Lane, Kolkata-29.
    Complainant



    ---Verses---



    1) Reliance Infocome Ltd.,

    34, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-71.
    Opposite Party



    Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

    Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member.





    Order No. 1 8 Dated 0 7 / 1 2 / 2 0 0 9 .



    1. The instant case arises out of the petition of complaint filed by M/s. Srijit Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 23/1, Keyatala lane, Kolkata-29 on 20.2.06 against Reliance Infocomm Ltd., E 01, Reliance Greens, Village-Motikhavdi, P.O. Digvijaygram, Dist. Jamnagar (Gujrat)-361140 with its branch office at Reliance House, 34, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata-71 with a prayer (a) to direct the o.p. to pay a sum of Rs.4,04,257/- to the complainant for the loss and harassment suffered by them, (b) to direct the o.p. to pay interest @18% p.a., and to pay (c) cost, (d) damages and (e) any other relief or reliefs.

    2. Now the moot question which crops up is whether the complainant is a consumer under C.P. Act, 1986. The complainant in its petition of complaint admitted that the complainant is a consultancy firm dealing with consultation of export and import.

    3. The complainant took out wireless land phones along with corporate connections for their office directors as per their scheme.

    4. That being dissatisfied with the disservice of the o.p. regarding the billing amount the case was lodged.

    5. Decision with reasons :

    The complainant is not a consumer u/s 2(d)(ii) of C.P. act, 1986 since the complainant gave his consultancy service for commercial gain. This apart, the billing dispute in respect of telecommunication, it is stated that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the C.P. Act is by implication barred. Section 7B of the Telegraph Act prevails vide Civil Appeal no.7687 of 2004 filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

    Hence, ordered,

    That the case is dismissed from this Forum since the complainant is not a consumer u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986. However, the complainant is at liberty to lodge his complain to the proper forum/court.

    Fees paid are correct.

    The case is disposed of from this forum.

    Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/45

    Anima Manna Bera
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    Reliance India Mobile and Commercial Manager, Reliance Infocom
    ...........Respondent(s)

    BEFORE:

    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    ORDER

    In the Court of the

    Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

    8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.


    CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 45 / 2007



    1) Anima Manna Bera,

    11C, Arpuli Lane, Kolkata-12.
    Complainant



    ---Verses---

    1) Reliance India Mobile.

    2) Commercial Manager, Reliance Infocom,

    Both are

    34, Chowringee Road, Kolkata-700071.
    Opposite Party

    Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

    Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member

    Order No. 1 9 Dated 2 7 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 0 .

    Ms. Anima Manna Bera, Complainant of the case, by filing a Petition of Complaint on 14.02.2007 has prayed for issuing direction upon the O.Ps, Reliance Mobile not to realize the excessive, inflated bills from the Complainant and Compensation of Rs. 15,000.00 and Litigation Cost. The Complainant on the basis of an offer, viz., “Pioneer Scheme” became a member on and from 22.02.2003 and obtained the mobile set bearing No. 31001972 on issuance of 13 post-dated cheques drawn on State Bank of India, Surya Sen Street, and accordingly, the connection was given on payment of total amount of Rs. 24,600.00 payable in 12 quarterly post-dated cheques of Rs. 1,800.00 each and one cheque for Rs. 3,000.00 for mobile set scheme of the O.P. 7 cheques have already been encashed by the O.P. No. 2 and the balance cheques are lying with the O.Ps and it is also contained in the agreement that inaugural pioneer customers would get 40% discount on STD calls made to non-Reliance members upto 30.04.2003 and would get facilities for making 400 minutes free call per month and that upto 400 minutes’ calls no charge would be levied. But from the beginning the mobile set was found defective & unsatisfactory and sometimes found disruption of service and against it the Complainant made a fax on 08.01.2004 to the O.P. No. 1 for not getting clear signal. But despite the assurance given by the O.Ps they raised bill for the sum of Rs. 179.37P dated 01.06.2003 without furnishing details of the calls of 400 minutes free calls and the O.Ps on different bills on different dates raised excessive and exorbitant bills for every month from 01.06.2003 to 01.04.2006 demanding payment of bills which are not only inflated but capricious, and finding no other alternative the Complainant sent Lawyer’s notice on 06.02.2004, but ignoring the Lawyer’s notice they have not complied with the assurance they have given to the Complainant earlier. And the Complainant has been compelled to file this case against the O.P.



    The O.Ps have filed their W.V. on 03.07.2007 contending, inter-alia, that the case is bad for misjoinder of parties as there is no Body Corporate known as Reliance India Mobile. This is the registered brand name of the Company’s product and is not a juristic person and so he cannot be sued. And there is no such post as Commercial Manger, Reliance Infocom. The Application is barred by resjudicata because the case was dismissed being CDF Case No. 358 of 2004 on 17.02.2005 vide Annexure-A.



    They have denied all the allegations regarding charging of amount of bills alleging to be excessive by the Complainant. It is their specific case that the Complainant has used the phone connection and has accrued an unpaid due of Rs. 4,778.00 till the last bill dated 01.07.2006 and the bills from June, 2005 to December, 2005 are available in the system. The Complainant is aware upto the last bills raised by R.C.O.M. and received by her bill from 01.06.05 to 01.12.05 are annexed hereto collectively marked Annexure-C. There is no deficiency of service on their part, and accordingly, they have prayed for dismissal of the case.



    DECISION WITH REASONS :-

    We have perused the documents, viz., the Loan Agreement alongwith the Application Form. We have also perused the fax message dated 18.01.2004 wherein she has complained that she has already paid 3 cheques of Rs. 1,800.00 but she did not get any signal clear in her house or office. And accordingly she wanted to stop her network from the day and not to deposit any advance cheque due on 10.01.2004 in favour of the O.Ps and she has requested them for verification of clear signal.



    The present case involves the question of dispute regarding payment of mobile phone bill. Under the provisions of Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act the matter regarding dispute of telephone bill is to be disposed of by arbitration and Hon’ble State Commission in several judgements has opined that with regard to dispute of telephone bill the dispute is to be resolved by way of arbitration under Section 7(B). The provisions of Section 7(B) is as follows : “Section 7(B) Arbitration of Disputes : - (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telephone line, appliance or apparatus arises between the Telegraph Authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either especially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of the disputes under this Section. (2) The award of the Arbitrator appointed under such Sub-Section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the disputes and shall not be questioned in any Court”. With regard to this provision the decisions reported in AIR1996SC-2476 & AIR1997SC-2653 are worth mentioning.
    In view of this position the Petition of Complaint is dismissed. No Order is passed as to cost. However, for ends of justice the Complainant is given the opportunity to refer his dispute under Section 7(B) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rules thereunder for arbitration by the Competent Authority. The case is disposed of from this Forum accordingly.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    Case No.864/08
    In the matter of :
    Sh. Pawan Kumar,
    R/o H.No.28/16, Ist Floor,
    Gali No.13, 60 Feet Road,
    Vishwas Nagar,
    Delhi-110032. …..Complainant

    Versus

    1. Reliance Web World Express,

    Yati Communication,

    9/97, 60 Ft. Road, Karan Gali,

    Vishwas Nagar,

    Delhi-110032. ……OP1

    2. Reliance Infocom,

    Reliance Communications Ltd.,

    5th Floor, Vijaya Building,

    Barakhamba Road,

    Connaught Place,

    New Delhi-110001. …….OP2

    O R D E R

    U.C. TIWARI, PRESIDENT

    OP1 is the franchise of OP2 and complainant subscribed to a telephone connection from OP and as per him regularly paid the bills raised by OP. In their bills, OP was making unwanted levy of data usage charges and every time complainant had to contact customer care unit of OP for correcting the bill. Complainant made several requests to OP for deactivation of data usage services but all was in vain. On 10.12.2007, it is alleged by complainant, that his complete services were deactivated by OP and since he was out of station on tour and roaming, he was forced to pay Rs.300/- for reactivation of the services and also a fine of Rs.50/-. The complainant claims that he took up the matter with OPs for amicable settlement of his grievances but he has not received any satisfactory response. Therefore, he has approached this Forum to direct OP to pay a compensation of Rs.10 lacs with interest alongwith litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-.


    On filing of the complaint, notices were issued to OPs. OP filed application before this Forum on behalf of OPs for rejection / dismissal of the complaint in view of the judgement titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 dated 01.09.2009 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that Consumer Forums / Commission’s constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 do not possess the power to entertain the matters pertaining to the telecom.

    Both the parties filed their evidences in support of their contentions. We have heard the arguments of the parties and also gone through the records carefully. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC) have held that special law overrides the general law and when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under :-
    “Section 7B. Arbitration of Disputes

    (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section.

    (2) The award of the Arbitrator appointed under Sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court”.



    It has also been brought to our notice recent judgement of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of Reliance Telecom Ltd. Vs. Jay Kumar Jain & Anr. in appeal no. 669/2008 decided on 06.10.2009 and Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of The Telephone Department Manager Vs. Kali Charan in appeal no. 1971/2002 decided on 16.09.2009 where it has been held that cases pertaining to telecom are beyond the pale of the Consumer Forum in view of the Supreme Court judgement dated 01.09.2009.

    In view of the above, the dispute in question cannot be adjudicated by this Forum and is to be determined by referring the matter to Arbitration. We, therefore, direct OP2 to refer the dispute in question for determination to Arbitration under Telegraph Act.
    With the above observation / direction, present complaint shall stand disposed of.
  • edited May 2010
    Hi
    Dear Sir/Mam

    My name is sanjeev k poonia.I had a postpaid landline connection no.01213259229with reliance .I have disconnected it due to some reasons on 30th of nov,2009.But I still have not recieved my security money back,Regarding the same i had a word with the executives of reliance they said that i will recieve that within 7 to 8 days each time.I had my conversation with Vikas(9359394041) in reliance many times even he replied the same.I am very much annoyed and do not except this kind of behaviour by reliance.I had my last conversation with Vikas(9359394041) yesterday 11th of may2010.I am not satisfied at all.please do the needfull.
    Yours faithfully
    Sanjeev
    (09457672749)
  • sriom_consumercortsriom_consumercort Junior Member
    edited August 2011
    My name is Shree Om, I have purchased CDMA reliance mobile number : 9326413725., after sometime my outgoing has been barred, i again summit the documents,
    they told me your documents i snot reach to back office please submit again, again i have submitted the documents on 1 Aug11, but my outgoing calls are still barred. i tried to contact to nodal officer as well but they are not able to resume my service.
    my mobile number : 9326413725.
    address : D3/403, Ganga Constella, Kharadi, Pune 14
  • coolprashant22coolprashant22 Junior Member
    edited November 2011
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    My name is Prashant. I have filled the migration form and deposited the settlement amount for POST to PREPAID on 13 Nov 2011. Till Now its not converted to PREPAID. I talked with Customer Care executive Mr. Suraj (Floor Supervisor), he told me that he cant help, go and contact to Reliance webworld. and Reliance webworld is saying go and ask about it to customer care. Already 5 days TAT has been passed. No one is helping me. I am really frustated with Reliance.
    Before Postpaid i use prepaid, but i got converted to postpaid just because they told me same prepaid plan they will offer in postpaid but after conversion, its different. Please help me out. They are totally fraud.

    My No is 9311878235
    Address: Phase 1A, 212, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59
  • RCOMcareRCOMcare Senior Member
    edited November 2011
    11-21-2011, 08:14 AM #16
    coolprashant22
    coolprashant22 is offline Junior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    My name is Prashant. I have filled the migration form and deposited the settlement amount for POST to PREPAID on 13 Nov 2011. Till Now its not converted to PREPAID. I talked with Customer Care executive Mr. Suraj (Floor Supervisor), he told me that he cant help, go and contact to Reliance webworld. and Reliance webworld is saying go and ask about it to customer care. Already 5 days TAT has been passed. No one is helping me. I am really frustated with Reliance.
    Before Postpaid i use prepaid, but i got converted to postpaid just because they told me same prepaid plan they will offer in postpaid but after conversion, its different. Please help me out. They are totally fraud.

    My No is 9311878235
    Address: Phase 1A, 212, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59


    Hi Prashant,

    We apologize for the inconvenience caused to you. Your problem has been escalated and a quick resolution team is working on this. We shall come back to you shortly.

    Regards,

    RCOMcare
  • nidhi007nidhi007 Junior Member
    edited November 2011
    the reliance gsm customer care executives of mumbai are extremely rude and pathetic. mr. yusuf misbehaved wit me wen i lodged complain about my balance
  • RCOMcareRCOMcare Senior Member
    edited November 2011
    #18 nidhi007
    View Profile
    View Forum Posts
    Private Message
    Add as Contact
    Junior Member
    Join Date Nov 2011
    Posts 1
    the reliance gsm customer care executives of mumbai are extremely rude and pathetic. mr. yusuf misbehaved wit me wen i lodged complain about my balance



    Hi Nidhi,

    This is to inform you that your concern has been noted. Please share your contact number with us so that we are able reach you. Our team is eager to help you.

    Regards,

    RCOMcare
  • azadlaskarazadlaskar Junior Member
    edited November 2011
    My name is Ruhul Islam, I am using Reliance GSM Service from three years my no is : 9707682517., Now my my outgoing has been barred,
    they told me your Validity finished I recharge 16 rupees according to suggest by their. now again telling me again recharge 40 rupees. my outgoing calls are still barred. i tried to contact to nodal officer as well but they are not able to resume my service.
    my mobile number : 9707682517
  • RCOMcareRCOMcare Senior Member
    edited November 2011
    Hi Rahul,

    We apologize for the inconvenience caused to you. Your problem has been escalated and a quick resolution team is working on this. We shall come back to you shortly.

    Regards,

    RCOMcare
  • edited November 2011
    I am vijay anand,my reliance gsm number is 8103132474,on 26 November 2011,i got a sms from reliance that your word service is activated,and they reduce my balance by 30 rupees,at that's time i need my balance desperately,and they reduce my balance,i had faced so many problem at that time,I have not sent any request for suck type of word service.i want my balance back ,with penalty on them for inconvenience.I have posted this on here before but didn't get any reply,plz help to get my balance back, that unfair with consumers,they activate service from their side without any request,and reduce balance.I don't know how a big company like reliance do cheating with customer,its nt the mistake,they are doing regularly with random customers.please help me and punish them

    with regards
    Viay anand
    permanent addrsss
    64 om vihar ph-4
    uttam nagar new delhi
    local address
    room no 321 bh-3
    IIITM gwalior
    morena link road gwalior
    MP
  • jayaahijayaahi Junior Member
    edited December 2011
    Hi
    welcome to this forum sites.Here you can find lots of information related your questions.
    You want to solve your question, I think you consult first you teacher then your friends.
    They can give you better solution.


  • vinu508vinu508 Junior Member
    edited December 2011
    Dear Reliance,
    This is Vinodh with one of your prepaid net connect modem 9347340434. Once I was a good supporter of Reliance communications that I had used your carrier communications for three years continuously. Now I was very upset and feel very shy of myself to make a small enquiry from your customer care as they had behaved very rudely and impolitely with me. They denied to take my complaint and register it without giving a complaint number. I pleaded him to escalate my call for internet connection issue as he denied to solve my issue. I had recharged twice to modem no 9347340434 and now it isn't working on Mac. It was working fine earlier for the first time. He had pulled down my legs on your standards. He was arguing that ZTE AC 8720 doesn't support Mac OS. It was supporting earlier and it was even printed under the "system requirements" in the manual.
    I was treated very harshly and in a very bad accent by Mr Venkatesh N who gave a cheap advice to by a new laptop to use that modem sarcastically.
    I would never recommend this kind of service to any person. Please jump into my shoes and try to understand my issue. I would rather demand you to refund all my money which I had paid for nothing.


    RELIANCE PLEASE DO NOT RELY TO GROW ON CUSTOMER'S MONEY.....
  • jayaahijayaahi Junior Member
    edited December 2011
    welcome to tjis forum sites. u can find information.
  • RCOMcareRCOMcare Senior Member
    edited December 2011
    "Hi Vijay,

    We apologize for the inconvenience caused to you. Your problem has been escalated and a quick resolution team is working on this. We shall come back to you shortly.

    Regards,

    RCOMcare"
  • RCOMcareRCOMcare Senior Member
    edited December 2011
    Hi Ruhul,

    Our customer service team has informed us that the matter has now been resolved. Assuring you the best of our services at all times.

    Regards,

    RCOMcare
  • edited December 2011
    I am Abdulgani,my reliance gsm number is 8088216358,on 09 Dec 2011,i got a sms from RM-Health reliance that your Health service is activated,and they reduce my balance by 30 rupees,at that's time i need my balance desperately,and they reduce my balance,i had faced so many problem at that time,I have not sent any request for this type of service.i want my balance back ,with penalty on them for inconvenience.This is unfair with Me(consumers),they activate service from their side without any request,and reduce balance.Please help me.
    Regards,
    Abdul
  • ravinderjakharravinderjakhar Junior Member
    edited April 2012
    Hi,


    My name is ravinder choudhary, my mobile number is 9315631143, it's a Reliance CDMA post paid, I requested for porting my number from cdma to GSM (BSNL) and whereas the Reliance have given me a port code RH692312 which is Valid upto 1st, MAY'2012. Today I received a call from Reliance Care no 01843240225 in which customer care lady inquired from me why u want to port. Then i told her i am not satisfied with your service where u are unnecessary adding hidden packs without confirming me. so i decided to port to other company. After that communication with her she threatened me i will see how u can go. please look in to the matter. i am firm that i want to port from reliance to BSNL (PREPAID). I already submitted my documents to BSNL for porting & purchase the sim Card. They assured me that it will changed with in a week. but i am afraid that reliance will not approve the porting of this no. as per customer care threatened conversation. so please help me to get away from clutches of reliance company.


    Reliance please resolve this issue quickly. I am really disappointed.
  • puttuputtu Junior Member
    edited April 2012
    Dear Sir/madam, I have taken a reliance GSM connection (no. 9883841098) about one month back. my out going call is barred without any intimation. Dealer told to submit my document again. How can a telecom company activate a new connection without varryfying documents. This is very embrrasing.
  • R_COMcare1R_COMcare1 Senior Member
    edited May 2012
    puttu wrote: »
    Dear Sir/madam, I have taken a reliance GSM connection (no. 9883841098) about one month back. my out going call is barred without any intimation. Dealer told to submit my document again. How can a telecom company activate a new connection without varryfying documents. This is very embrrasing.

    Dear Customer,


    We have noted your complaint. The matter has been escalated to our customer service team who will get in touch with you directly to resolve your concerns.


    Regards,


    RCOMcare
Sign In or Register to comment.