BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 351/2005 Filed on 21.10.2005 Dated : 15.06.2009
Complainant:
B. Venugopal, Sindooram, MVRA-75, Kalavoorkonam, Indira Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram – 5.
(By adv. Pirappancode K.G. Vidhumohan)
Opposite parties:
Arakath Sree Associates, Soorya Building, S.S. Kovil Road, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram. Celltech Systems, Tata Tele Services Ltd., T.C 28/1761(5), Kochar Road, Pazhavangadi, Thiruvananthapuram. (By adv. Anithas Jacob)
Tata Indicom, Opposite Trivandrum Tennis Club, Near SBI ATM, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been taken as heard on 15.05.2009, the Forum on 15.06.2009 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
The brief facts of the case are the following: The complainant had availed the land phone and mobile phone service connection of Tata Indicom on 10.09.2005 and these were functioning well till 03.10.2005. But after 03.10.2005 the land phone became functionless. The matter was informed to opposite parties 2 and 3 and the complainant was asked to remit an additional amount of Rs. 958/- besides Rs. 1,000/- initially paid. Though the complainant remitted the amount as demanded, the connection has not been given even after repeated requests and the opposite parties have also misbehaved and threatened the complainant. Hence this complaint praying for cancellation of the telephone connection along with refund, compensation and costs. Opposite parties 1 & 3 remain exparte. The 2nd opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. 2nd opposite party is a Direct Selling Agent of Tata Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. The complainant took phone connection of Tata Indicom from the 2nd opposite party on 10.09.2005. Company's bill payment falls on 18th of every month. For the period 19.08.2005 to 18.09.2005 the bill amount was Rs. 958/-. The complainant remitted only this bill amount. All the telephone service providers are governed and controlled by the Telephone Regulatory Authority of India and the service providers are bound by the directives, orders and regulations issued by the same from time to time. The alleged complaints of non-functioning is not true. Due to instructions by the regulatory authority, no telephone except a WLL or a mobile could be removed from the allotted location and used as a phone. On such errors being committed, the system requires to be re-set due to tower locking feature, which is introduced as per the directive dated 04.03.2005 of TRAI to reduce the mobility of land phone. This 'tower locking' feature is specifically mentioned in clause 3 (a) of customer application form and customers are made aware of this. It is also submitted that tower lock can be released only from the main office of Tata Tele-services Pvt. Ltd., and the 2nd opposite party being an agent cannot do anything in this regard. Complainant was informed about the 2nd opposite party's inability to release the 'tower lock'. The tower lock was happened solely due to the negligent act of the complainant for which this opposite party is not liable. 2nd opposite party never threatened and abused complainant when he approached the 2nd opposite party for lodging complaint regarding the non-functioning of the phone. On the other hand, the 2nd opposite party has given all the assistance and help to the complainant. Even though this opposite party has given specific direction regarding tower locking feature, the complainant committed the same thing repeatedly and due to that on 05.10.2005, 07.10.2005 and on 13.10.2005 repeatedly tower locking happened. Then the complainant contacted the customer care centre of Tata Tele Services Pvt. Ltd., for releasing tower lock and accordingly the same was released. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed by him in the complaint. There is no latches or deficiency of service or any mental agony caused to the complainant by the act of this opposite party. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Complainant filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked on his part. Though the 2nd opposite party requested for cross examining the complainant, they thereafter never turned up to contest the case and hence the affidavit of the complainant stands unchallenged. Opposite parties had no evidence. In the contentions raised, the issues that would arise for consideration are:- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to claim any reliefs claimed?
Points (i) & (ii):- Admittedly, the complainant has availed phone connection of Tata Indicom from the 2nd opposite party on 10.09.2005. The complainant has alleged that the land phone became non-functional from 03.10.2005 i.e; after almost a month of purchase of the same. Complainant alleges that he was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 959/- and after that though he had repeatedly requested to rectify the same, it has not been attended by the opposite parties. Ext. P3 dated 05.10.2005 goes to prove that the complainant has remitted an amount of Rs. 959/- to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.P1 is the receipt of acceptance of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant by 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party has contended that the alleged complaint of non-functioning is not true. Due to instructions by the regulatory authority, no telephone except a WLL or a mobile could be removed from the allotted location and used as a phone. On such errors being committed, the system requires to be re-set due to tower locking feature, which is introduced as per the directive dated 04.03.2005 of TRAI to reduce the mobility of land phone and in this case the tower lock was happened solely due to the negligent act of the complainant. The 2nd opposite party has further contended that the feature of 'tower locking' has been specifically mentioned in the customer application form and the customers were made aware of the same. But the 2nd opposite party has not produced any document detailing the tower locking. Moreover there is no evidence adduced on behalf of the opposite parties to support the contention that the system requires to be re-set due to tower locking feature and the tower lock has happened solely due to the negligent act of the complainant.
The 2nd opposite party has further contended that the tower lock can be released only from the main office of Tata Tele Services and the 2nd opposite party being an agent cannot do anything in this regard. At this juncture, the aspect to be considered is whether the 2nd opposite party can simply evade from their liability. As per Ext. P3 an amount of Rs. 959/- has been collected from the complainant by the 2nd opposite party. Ext. P3 is dated 05.10.2005 and the complainant alleges that the system became functionless after 03.10.2005. Hence from Ext. P3 it is clear that the amount has been received by the 2nd opposite party after that. In such a circumstance when the 2nd opposite party has the duty to make necessary arrangements for curing the defects. When the 2nd opposite party who is the DSA of the Tata Tele Services Pvt. Ltd. itself cannot release the tower lock and is unable to do anything in this regard, how can a consumer like the complainant, be expected to do anything on this matter unless he is made aware of the same. The 2nd opposite party has raised highly technical contention which they have failed to establish. The complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaint. When the phone connection was given to the complainant, the opposite party had a bounden duty to provide uninterrupted service also, but here the complainant could not have the satisfaction of using the service and he has been forced to suffer hardships for no reason of his.
From the above discussions, we are of the view that all the opposite parties are equally responsible to compensate the complainant for the deficiency in service on their part. Since this is a case where no question of manufacturing defect has been alleged, there is no necessity to follow the procedure contemplated under Sec. 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. In the above circumstance it is found that the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 1,959/- along with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and costs Rs. 1,000/- from the opposite parties jointly and severally. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to refund Rs. 1,959/- along with a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- with Rs. 1,000/- towards costs to the complainant within one month of receipt of the order. On receipt of the above amounts, the complainant shall return the phone to the opposite parties.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of June 2009.
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
O.P. No. 351/2005 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : NIL II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Copy of temporary receipt dated 06.09.2005 for Rs. 1000/- P2 - Bill dated 21.09.2005 issued by opposite party. P3 - Temporary receipt dated 05.10.2005 P4 - Details of Bill No. 126054552 dated 21.09.2005. III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
