CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.305/2011
Saturday the 31st day of December, 2011
Petitioner : Saseendran Unni,
Kuttikattu House,
Moolavattom PO,
Kottayam.
Vs.
Opposite party : Area Manager,
Reliance Communication,
A&P Arcade,
Sahodaran Ayyappan Road,
Kadavanthara, Cochin-682016.
2) Branch Head,
Reliance Communications
(Reliance World)
Kanjikuzhy PO, Kottayam.
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Case of the petitioner, filed on 28/11/11, is as follows:-
Petitioner is a consumer of opposite party. 1st opposite party is the Area Manager and 2nd opposite party is Branch Manager of Reliance communication. Opposite party is providing service of internet connection. The monthly charge for the connection is Rs.430/-. Due date of bill payment is 5th of every month. If bill is not remitted in time Rs.50/- will be imposed as fine. Complainant is availing the service without making any fault in payment. Due to absence of the petitioner in his residence during October 2011 petitioner can effected the payment only on 25/10/11thus for no prompt payment opposite party disconnected petitioner’s connection. Petitioner remitted the monthly installment without fine. But after payment the opposite party has not effected reconnection. Petitioner again effected payment for the next month for Rs.480/- on 2/11/11, even though the monthly payment is only Rs.430/-. After two months opposite party assured that petitioner’s connection will be reinstated. On non-complaince of assurance petitioner approached opposite party several times for effecting the connection. But so far opposite party has not effected the internet connection to the petitioner. Hence the petition.
Notice is issued from the Forum to the opposite party, opposite party has not entered appearance or filed any version so opposite party is set expartee.
Points for considerations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of deposition of petitioner as PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 documents on the side of petitioner.
Point No.1
Crux of the case of the petitioner is that opposite party has not effected internet connection, even after remitting the entire dues with fine. Petitioner produced receipt dtd 25/10/11 said document is marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A2 is the document showing subsequent payment by the petitioner dtd 2/11/11 for Rs.480/-. From Ext.A1 it can be seen that petitioner had effected payment with fine for the defaulted month. From Ext.A2 it can be seen that petitioner paid excess amount than monthly payment for the subsequent month. In the absence of contra evidence we are constrained to rely on the sworn proof affidavit filed by the petitioner. In our view act of the opposite party in not restoring internet connection after payment of dues amounts to deficiency in service, so point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 petition is allowed.
In the result opposite party is directed to reinstate the internet connection to the petitioner’s premises. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- to the petitioner as compensation for loss and sufferings. Opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.1000/- as litigation cost.
Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of the order. If the order is not complied petitioner is entitled to 12% interest for the award amount from date of filing of the petition till realisation
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Receipt dtd 25/10/11
Ext.A2-Receipt dtd 2/11/11
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
