BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 152/2006 Filed on 26.05.2006

Dated : 30.06.2010

Complainant:

M.K. Thankakutty, “Sree Lekshmi”, T.C 16/1235(1), Kannettumukku, Thycaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite parties:

1. Britto, Manager, M/s Touch Tones, T.C 9/1038/03, Sree Ganesh Sastha Dental Clinic Lane, Sasthamangalam.

    

2. The Manager, M/s Tata Tele Services Ltd., S.P. Plaza, Palarivattom, Kochi-25.

(By adv. T.L. Sree Ram)

This O.P having been heard on 16.04.2010, the Forum on 30.06.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: Complainant is a customer of Tata tele Services. She was a person holding a gazetted post in the Education Department and retired from service on 28.02.2005. She paid an amount of Rs. 3,999/- on 18.05.2005 to the 1^st opposite party for the purchase of a land phone and mobile service simultaneously. After 2 days the telephone connection was received. Sri. Raju and Britto two personnel of Tata Tele have continuously contacted and persuaded the complainant to purchase the telephones. But the complainant experienced that the merits of the services they guaranteed is not trust worthy. Complainant had actually demanded for prepaid telephone on a mobile phone. The complainant paid the said amount bonafide believing that the amount included prepayment for a month. The agency suppressed the fact that they had no prepayment scheme and cheated the complainant. They also persuaded the complainant to discontinue the BSNL service which was holding about 20 years. The complainant had several times enquired whether she ought to pay any additional charges towards the telephone connection. The agency assured the complainant that no other charges were payable except the monthly call charges. The agency sold the land phone and mobile phone to complainant for an amount of Rs. 3,999/- whereas the actual price of the same was Rs. 2,999/- at the time, as could be learnt from other agencies of Tata tele. Thus the opposite parties suppressed the real facts and deceived the customer. A telephone bill for Rs. 76.63 dated 21.05.2003 was received by the complainant on 23.06.2003 who remitted Rs. 80/- on that day itself. On 23.06.2005 the agency disconnected both the telephone connection simultaneously both the incoming and outgoing facilities without any notice. Subsequently on enquiry by the complainant the opposite party served a bill for Rs. 2,519/- for the period from 19.05.2005 to 18.06.2004 in which the due date of payment was noted as 08.07.2005. But the opposite party already disconnected the telephone on 23.06.2005 i.e; 15 days before the due date and that was without any prior notice to the complainant. The act of the opposite party is unlawful and violative of all the rules and regulations pertaining to tele service. The agency even forgot the fact that the customer is a person who has deposited Rs. 3,999/- with them. The complainant's husband who is an heart patient and was hospitalized during the time due to a motor accident failed to get any help and support from family members due to the unexpected disconnection of the telephone. Moreover he is doing some business and alternate arrangements could not be made for conducting his business. This caused considerable financial loss and high tension in the family. Besides, the complainant's two sons are working in Mumbai. As the complainant could not get in touch with them due to the disconnection of the telephone, it caused mental agony and anxiety in both ends. Even though the agency has stated that the complainant has to pay monthly call charges only, the bill consisted of rent Rs. 250/- and huge other amount. It is a real fact that the call charge is only Rs. 992.80 out of the total amount of Rs. 2,519/-. The complainant is ready to pay Rs. 992.80 being the call charge. The subscriber is entitled to get the discount offered by the tata tele. But the agency has withdrawn from their offers after the purchase took place. Complainant issued notice to the opposite parties regarding the undue charges. But no satisfactory reply received from their side. The complainant had no information about the credit limit of Rs. 2,000/- as the opposite parties pointed out in their reply. Moreover the complainant has deposited Rs. 3,999/- with them and the actual call charge is only Rs. 992.80. This petition is to direct the opposite parties to take the telephone instrument back after returning the cash balance deducting the actual call charges and for compensation for two lakhs being the total loss caused to the complainant and her husband due to the unexpected disconnection of the telephones without prior notice or serving bill.

The 1^st opposite party in this case is Britto, Manager, M/s Touch Tones, Sasthamangalam, Tvpm. Two times notice steps has been sent to the 1^st opposite party, but the notice returned with the endorsement addressee left. 2^nd opposite party M/s Tata Tele Services Ltd. filed their version. In the version 2^nd opposite party states that the 2^nd opposite party received a sum of Rs. 3,999/- from the complainant, as the cost of the mobile phone. The complainant had applied for a mobile and land line connection from the 2^nd opposite party under the C.M.O Plan and Walky 150 plan under Combo Scheme. The allegation that opposite party prompted the complainant to disconnect the BSNL connection as stated in the complaint is absolutely false. The complainant was also aware of the fact that her credit limit at the time of disconnection was Rs. 2,000/-. It was agreed and known by her that if she exceeds the credit limit the opposite parties have got right to disconnect the connection. The fact that she had exceeded the credit limit through system generated messages and requested her to pay the outstanding to avail uninterrupted services. The 2^nd opposite party further stated that the bill amount is calculated and it includes the monthly rental charges and also the actual call charges dues by the customer. The complainant is not entitled for any claim or compensation from the 2^nd opposite party, since there is no negligence or deficiency of service or unfair trade practice.

Complainant in this case has filed proof affidavit and produced 3 documents. The 2^nd opposite party cross examined her. Opposite party did not adduce any evidence. The affidavit filed by the 2^nd opposite party has not been considered by this Forum as it was not filed within the prescribed time.

Points to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- To prove her contentions the complainant has produced 3 documents. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the copy of receipt of the payment of Rs. 3,999/-. Opposite party received the amount towards deposit type line No. 9987736, Kyocera KX 440 H/S. Ext. P2 is the copy of disputed bill dated 21.06.2005. As pr this bill, bill period is 19.05.2005 to 18.06.2005, bill amount is Rs. 2,519/-. Ext. P3 is the copy of reply notice dated 30.08.2005. Through this reply letter the opposite party informed the complainant that they have disconnected the service for non-payment of the amount after exceeding the credit limit of Rs. 2,000/- and they have intimated the complainant vide SMS. From Ext. P1 document we assume that the amount received by the opposite parties from the complainant is not for the price of phone, it was received as deposit amount. Moreover in Ext. P2 bill the opposite parties charged rent for the phone. If they received the amount as price of the phone, they have no right to receive rent. In this case the complainant got the connection on 18.05.2005. Ext. P2 bill period is for the period from 19.05.2005 to 18.06.2005, bill amount is Rs. 2,519/-, bill date is 21.06.2005. Complainant received the bill on 23.06.2005, pay due date is 08.07.2005. But the opposite parties disconnected the connection on 23.06.2005. Opposite parties argued that they have the right to disconnect the connection when the complainant exceeds the credit limit of Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant stated that she has no knowledge about the credit limit. The opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that as per the agreement they have the right to disconnect the connection when the customer exceeds the credit limit. In this case 2^nd opposite party stated that before disconnection they have sent S.M.S to the complainant about the disconnection. But they have no evidence to prove that contention. Hence the act of the opposite party in disconnecting the connection without notice and before the due date of payment amounts to unfair trade practice. From the evidence and documents adduced by the complainant we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of 2^nd opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the 2^nd opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 1,480/-(Rs. 3,999/- - Rs. 2,519/-) to the complainant and 2^nd opposite party shall also pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. 2^nd opposite party has the right to repossess the telephones (mobile & land phone) and their connections from the custody of the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall be paid for the entire amount.

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 30^th day of June 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 152/2006

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - M.K. Thankakutty

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of receipt dated 18.05.2005

P2 - Photocopy of bill dated 21.06.2005

P3 - Photocopy of reply notice dated 30.08.2005

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb