KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

  APPEAL  NO: 779/2004

                    JUDGMENT DATED: 31-08-2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU     : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                      : MEMBER

1.         Reliance Infocomm Ltd.,

A & P Arcade,

Sahodaran Ayyappan Road,

Kadavanthra, Cochin,

Ernakulam Dist.

2.         The Manager,

Reliance O.T.C.Centre,                 : APPELLANTS

Chittoor Road, Cochin,

Ernakulam District.

3.         Reliance India Mobile Centre,

Manjamkuzhi Building,

Kolencherry, Ernakulam District.

(By Adv:Sri.Padmini.N)

            Vs.

Charles D.David,

S/o T.P.David,                                              : RESPONDENT

Residing at V244, Kodiyampara Bldg.

Kolenchery.P.O, Ernakulam.

                                           JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.29/04.  The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant.  This appeal prefers from the dispute arised from a telephone connection provided by the appellants to the respondent.  In short the complaint alleging that the complainant had taken a connection under the belief that the connection was a mobile one, that he exchanged his handset to get the connection.  That huge amount was issued to him as bill and that bill included unattended calls.  The further allegation from the complainant was that the connection had more variation than other mobile phones and he had sustained huge pain the ear and severe headache.  Another allegation that the opposite parties issued unnecessary bills and hence the complaint was filed to set aside the bills, terminate the connection, to return the handset or its price worth Rs.3900/- and compensation of Rs.5000/- for payment.

2. The opposite parties appeared and contended that the complainant had taken the connection under the handset exchange scheme and the value of the set as agreed as Rs.2050/- and from that Rs.850/- was deducted at the time of taking connection and the remaining Rs.1200/- by 12 instalments for Rs.100/- each from call charges.  The opposite parties admitted the bill were issued without deducting the value agreed and accepted by the complainant and that they are ready to rectify the defects in the bill.  That no repudiation is created by the connection and that the opposite parties never charges for unattended calls.  There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on that part.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

3. The evidence consisted of the affidavit of the complainant and marked Exts.A1 to A5 and the opposite parties produced documents and marked it as Exts.B1 to B4.  After hearing both sides the Forum below passed a considered order.  The Forum below found that there is a deficiency of service and ordered to return the handset of the complainant or price of it to the complainant and accept the handset from the complainant.  The Forum below set aside all the bills issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.  There were compensation and cost ordered.  This appeal prefers from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below by the appellant.  The counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent are present and they submitted their case.  The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not in accordance with the provisions of the law and evidence.  At the very same day the counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that the view taken by the Forum below is legally sustainable and there is no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below.

4. This commission heard in detail and it find that some deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties.  We are not seeing any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Forum below except some modification in the result portion.

In the result this appeal is allowed in part, we set aside all the bills issued by the opposite parties to the complainant and also direct to pay 75% of the price of the handset of the complainant and direct the complainant/respondent to produce the same handset before the appellants.  The appellants have the liberty to inspect the handset and verify the present condition of the handset.  This appeal is disposed in accordance with the above modifications.  Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.  Points of this appeal are answered accordingly.

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT

VL.