v

SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMEBR)

            Sri. N. Somanadhan, has filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows:-  Service to his Reliance Infocomm Ltd.  Mobile Phone bearing No.9349407289 was suspended by the opposite parties on 28.8.2005.   Till August 2005 he had remitted the amount for the Post Paid Bill regularly.   The above disconnection was due to the non-remittance of the amount of Rs.1800/- vide Cheque.  At the time of the commencing the said connection, certain concessions were given to the newly enrolled customers under the group Pioneer Customers and he was one among                              the Pioneer Customers, and RIM, collected 13 post dated cheques of Rs.600/- each from him in advance under the said scheme.   On February 2004, he was asked to remit a sum of Rs.1800/- in cash, due to the reason of 3 cheques bounced.  He remitted Rs.1800/- vide receipt dt. 16.2.2004.  He also remitted Rs.1200/- vide receipt dt. 16.2.2004, along with a remittance of  Rs.350/-  vide receipt dt. 16.2.2004.    Rs.350/- was the prescribed fee for plan migration from prepaid to post paid.  He was told that he would be secured with regular post paid bills thereafter and payment may be made in the bill regularly;  and opposite parties agreed to  return the unused cheque leaves within a fortnight.   But they have not returned the cheque leaves; even after his remittance was prompt up to August, 2005; the opposite parties informed him that he was a defaulter and directed him to remit  Rs.1800/-.    Opposite parties ignored the request for reconnection.  He was prompt in remittance.  He contacted the opposite parties for relief.  Opposite parties had not taken any earnest steps for reconnection.  Hence the complainant seeking compensation.

            2.  Notice were issued to the opposite parties.   They entered appearance before this Forum.  1^st opposite party filed version.  In the version it is stated that they pass information to the complainant  subsequently  and regularly for their convenience.   It is stated that no scheme is existed or prevailing which enables a customer to migrate from a prepaid to post paid connection.  Hence the allegation associated with that  does not have either factual or legal foundation and that the complainant was a defaulter throughout.  It is further stated that the barring of out going facility is due to non-payment of dues after due notice, and that if the consultancy of the complainant is terminated them, it may be solely because of his inefficiency.  

            3.  Considering the contentions of the complainant, this Forum has raised the following issues:-

(1)    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

(2)    Whether the complaint is entitled to get compensation and costs?

4.  Issues 1 and 2:-     On the side of the complainant, he has filed proof affidavit and produced 7 documents in evidence, and the same was marked as Exts.A1 to A8 and he has been examined as PW1 and cross examined by the opposite parties.   Ext.A1 is the original Receipt No.KER/PIL/108820 dt. 16.2.2004 showing the remittance of Rs.1800/- by the complainant before the 3^rd opposite party on payment towards outstanding dues.    Ext.A2 is the original Receipt No.ICER/RIL/108821 dt. 16.2.04 showing the remittance of Rs.1200/- by the complainant before the 3^rd opposite party on payment towards outstanding dues.  Ext.A3 is the original Receipt No.KER/RIL/108882 dt. 16.2.2004 showing the remittance of Rs.350/- by the complainant before the 3^rd opposite party as payment  towards outstanding dues.   Ext.A4 is the letter dt. 26.09.2005 of the complainant to the first opposite party showing the details of remittance of amount and the disconnection issues, and requested them to give connection within one week.  Ext.A5 is the letter dt. 4^th October, 2005 of the first opposite party addressed to the complainant directing the contact to the Customer Care Executive for his grievances and regretted the inconvenience caused to the complainant.   Ext.A6 is the visiting card of the complainant.  Ext.A7 is the copy of the Bank A/c details received by the complainant from the opposite parties.  Ext.A8 is the copy of the billing payment details.        

            5.  On the side of the opposite parties 1 and 2, they have filed proof affidavit and produced 3 documents in evidence and 1^st opposite party has been examined as RW1.   The documents marked as Exts.B1 to B3.  Ext.B1 is the  copy of the Power of Attorney of the 1^st opposite party authorizing Sri.Raja Raja Varma to represent before the Court and for follow up of the proceedings.  Ext.B2 is the copy of the Bank statement.  Ext.B3 is the copy of the detailed statement.    This statement is silent with regard to the remittance Rs.1800/- by the complainant on 16.2.2004; even though the opposite parties had given credit for a sum of Rs.1200/- on 18.2.2004 remitted by the complainant on 16.2.3004.  Ext.B3 further shows that the opposite parties had given adjustment for Rs.1800/- only on 13.11.2008 which was remitted by the complainant on 16.2.2004.  Ext.B3 is the another statement furnished by the opposite parties.

6. On a careful study of the entire matter of this case, it can be seen that the complainant is the customer of the opposite parties.  It is alleged by the complainant that he had obtained the mobile connection from the opposite parties after collected 13 post dated cheques from the complainant in advance.   On a verification of the entire documents produced by both parties, it can further seen that the complainant was prompt, in paying his bills.  While so, the opposite parties directed the complainant to remit Rs.1800/- during February, 2004 due to the reason of dishonoured of the cheque.   Since there was no dues pending the complainant remitted Rs.1800/- on 16.2.2004.  Complainant had also remitted Rs.1200/- on the above date as claimed by the opposite parties, together with the remitting of Rs.350/- on 16.2.2004 (Exts.A1 to A3) without ascertaining the remittance made by the complainant the opposite parties disconnected the service.  Ext.B1 produced by the opposite party shows that  they have not given credit for the said amount of Rs.1800/- remitted by the complainant on 16.2.2004.   The statement also silent with regard to the remittance of Rs.350/-  remitted by the complainant on 16.2.2004; for plan migration.   The opposite parties did not effected the reconnection as requested by the complainant.   The entire matter shows that without verifying the remittance of the complainant, the opposite parties disconnected the service.    It shows that there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties and for this, the opposite parties are answerable to the complainant.  The action of the opposite parties are highly illegal and unauthorized.   The opposite parties committed irregularities and service rendered by them were highly defective and so the opposite parties are jointly  bound to pay compensation and costs to the complainant.  Hence after perusing the documents on both sides and a verification of the deposition of the parties and after a detailed hearing, we are of the view that the allegation raised by the complainant against the opposite parties are to be treated as genuine.   The contentions raised by the opposite parties lacks bonafides and it has no merit.   Since there is   deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties; the complaint is to be allowed.  The issues are in favour of the complainant.         

In the result, we hereby direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant for his mental agony, pain and inconvenience due to the deficiency in service and negligence of the  opposite parties and pay a cost of Rs.500/- for this proceedings.  We further direct the opposite parties to pay the said amounts within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

            Complaint allowed.

            Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of November, 2008.

 

                                                                                                Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:

Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:

Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:

Appendix:-

Evidence of the opposite parties:-         

PW1                            -                       N.Somanadhan (Witness)

Ext.A1                         -                       Receipt No.108820

Ext.A2                         -                       Receipt No.108821

Ext.A3                         -                       Receipt No.108822

Ext.A4                         -                       Letter dated 26.9.2005 (Photo copy)

Ext.A5                         -                       Letter dated 4.10.2005

Ext.A6                         -                       Designation Card

Ext.A7                         -                       Agent Bank Account Details (Photo Copy)

Ext.A8                         -                       Billing payment details (Photo copy)

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1                            -                       R. Raja Raja Varma (Witness)

Ext.B1                          -                       Power of Attorney

Ext.B2                          -                       Bank Account Details (Photo copy)

Ext.B3                          -                       Statement of Accounts (Photo copy)

// True Copy //

                                                                                                              By Order

                                                                                                Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Oppo. Parties/S.F.

Typed by:-pr/-

Compared by:-