K. M. Vinodkumar filed a consumer case on 21 Jul 2008 against BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd in the Trissur Consumer Court. The case no is op/04/1525 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd Manager Manager BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S.
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. K. M. Vinodkumar
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd 2. Manager3. Manager BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Mathew Chakkappan
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Mariamma. K. Ittoop
ORDER
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President The case of petitioner is : He has taken Mobile connection from BPL office, Thrissur on 27/11/04, but the service to his mobile was suspended on 2/12/04. When enquired it was told that one Vinod Kumar, Parappurath Kalarickal House, Vallachira had defaulted some money for years back. He told that he was not that Vinod Kumar, but they did not agree and asked to pay the dues. Due to this many valuable interview calls was supposed to take place have lost. Hence this petition. The Counter of respondent is: 2. The complainant has subscribed for services and he has been given a conditional temporary connection subject to credit verification as per the terms and conditions of subscription agreed by him. The same is the standard of operation prevalent in mobile industry. The agreed terms and conditions specifically say that the application can be rejected and the same is subject to the confirmation by the company subsequently. Usually the processing of the application once submitted will be completed within 30 days and in the meanwhile the credit verification of the subscriber will also be availed. If the verification report is negative, the application will be rejected. The verification is effected by independent agencies after local inspection as well. Due to huge defaults by subscribers the industry cannot be commercially sustained without meticulous verification procedures. The verification report of the subscriber has been negative and we have rejected the application in the most proprietary and legal way after duly intimating the same directly to the complainant and offered refund. He did not agree for the same and did not collect the refund. Company cannot extend the services to a subscriber whose verification report is negative. Now the opposite parties are furnishing the DD bearing No.516826 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce for Rs.331/-. Hence dismiss the complaint. 3. The only point for consideration is : 1)Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation as claimed ? 4.The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P6 and Exhibits R1 to R5. No other evidence. 5. The definite case of the complainant is for the default of another Vinod Kumar the complainant has suffered. According to the petitioner the BPL connection he was taken only on 27/11/04 and they suspended the service to his mobile on 2/12/04. Perusing the documents produced by the Opposite Parties it can be seen that all the documents are establishing the case of the complainant. Exhibit R3 is the bill statement of one Mr.Vinod Kumar and Exhibit P1 is the bill statement of the complainant. In Both the bills there are so many discrepancies which affirms the case of petitioner. As per Exhibit R3 the address of the subscriber is Mr.Vinod Kumar, 5/419, Parappurath Kalarikkal House, Vallachira P.O. , Thrissur, Near Kadalassery, Thrissur 680562 and in Exhibit P1 which is the bill statement produced by the complainant, the address given is the complainant and Exhibit R3 shows the address of another Vinod Kumar. The Account No., Mobile phone No., Credit limit etc. are entirely different. According to the petitioner he has taken connection only on 27/11/04. But as per Exhibit R3 the statement date is 22/6/03, which was before the connection. There is clear deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. So it is very clear that for the default of some other person the complainant has suffered much. It is to be penalized. The complainant has stated that he has missed valuable interview calls and two documents are produced to affirm that version. 6. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and the hardship suffered by the complainant. Comply the order within one month. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 22nd day of July 2008.