IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 306/09 DATED 06.10.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Rajanna.T.M.,<br /> No.156, 7th Cross, I Block,<br /> Ramakrishnagara, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. Manager, Bharathi Airtel Ltd.,<br /> No.55, Divyashree Towers, Bannerghatta Main Road, <br /> Bangalore-560029.<br /> <br /> 2. Manager, Bharathi Airtel Ltd., No.9A, No.2, Channel Network Communication, Vishwamanava Double Road, Mysore-9.<br /> (By Sri. B.J.Mahesh, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 20.08.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 16.09.2009<br /> Date of order : 06.10.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 20 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed a complaint, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.384.34 with interest.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint amongst other facts, it is alleged that he had taken postpaid SIM of the opposite parties and paid refundable advance of Rs.500/-. In the month of February 2009, for personal reasons complainant got disconnection of the phone and requested to refund the advance. The opposite parties directed to pay the arrears of bill. Accordingly, on 16.02.2009, the complainant paid the entire bill and a sum of Rs.384.34 was repayable by the opposite parties to the complainant. In spite of repeated requests made by the complainant, opposite parties have not paid the said amount. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite parties have filed version, and admitted that they were to pay the amount claimed by the complainant. It is contended that, for the said amount, a cheque was drawn in the name of the complainant on 16.04.2009, it was sent through courier. It returned un delivered. Complainant was requested to collect the cheque from the opposite parties. But, the complainant refused to receive the cheque. Other facts alleged in the complaint are denied. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complailnt.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, appraised officer for the opposite parties has filed an affidavit. When the matter was posted for arguments, the complainant remained absent. We have heard the arguments on advocate for the opposite parties and perused the material on record.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The fact that opposite parties had to pay Rs.384.34 is admitted. The opposite parties contend that cheque for the said amount was sent through courier, but it returned undelivered. To prove the fact, that the cheque was sent through courier and returned undelivered, except the interested contention of the opposite parties, there is no other evidence on record. Having sent the cheque, has contended, the opposite parties could have produced courier receipt and the cover with an endorsement returned undelivered. That has not been done.<br /> 8. Further contention of the opposite parties that, after the cheque returned undelivered, they called upon the complainant to come and receive or collect the cheque from them. But, the complainant did not collect the cheque. To show that, in fact, the opposite parties had called upon the complainant to collect cheque, no cogent evidence for them is placed on record. On the other hand, all along the complainant has contended that since from the month of February 2009, he made repeated requests to the opposite parties for payment of the said amount, but there was no response. Considering these facts, the contention of the opposite parties that, they had called upon the complainant to come and collect the cheque, has not been proved.<br /> 9. As claimed by the complainant, in the month of February 2009, the amount was payable by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have produced Xerox copy of a cheque. It is dated 16.04.2009. When the opposite parties were to refund the amount on 16.02.2009, why there is delay on the part of the opposite parties, no proper explanation is forthcoming. Moreover, there is no evidence regarding sending the said cheque to the complainant, as contended.<br /> 10. Considering the facts, the opposite parties in not refunding the amount have committed deficiency in service and accordingly our finding is in affirmative.<br /> 11. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.384 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 16.02.2009, till realization of the entire amount. The amount shall be paid, within a month from the date of this order.<br /> 3. Further, the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 6TH October 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />