By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner availed a telephone connection from the TATA Teleservices on 25/5/06 and also paid Rs.2020/-. This scheme was money back scheme and the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1000/- at the time of disconnection. There was no arrears in bill. On 2007 January onwards petitioner had stopped to use the phone and informed the matter to 2nd respondent and asked to disconnect the service. As per that, connection has been disconnected, but the equipment is not taken away by them. The money back offer is also not performed. Several times demanded, but not done. Hence this complaint. 2. The counter of 1st Respondent in brief is as follows: The allegation that the 2nd respondent agreed to repay an amount of Rs.1000/- at the time of connection is not known to this respondent. According to this scheme, the respondents are not collecting any amount towards refund deposit. Plan 2020 describes money back scheme i.e. customer will have to pay Rs.1800+12.24% of service tax i.e.220 which amounts to Rs.2020/-. At present the complainants telephone is disconnected and there is no deficiency in service. Since this respondent has not received any amount towards refund deposit, the claim is baseless. This respondent is an unwarranted party and can be exonerated from the allegations. 3. 2nd respondent is set exparte. 4. The points for consideration are : 1)Is there deficiency in service and unfair trade practice ? 2)If so, is the complainant is entitled for amount of Rs.1000/- and interest ? 3) Reliefs and costs ? 5. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P3 and Exhibits R1 to R3. 6. Points : In the version the 1st respondent admitted that the complainant had availed the Telephone connection under money back scheme by paying a sum of Rs.2020/-. In Ext. R1, the Individual Customer Application Form, it is stated that, the scheme is 2020 money back offer. The petitioner had remitted Rs.2020/- at the time of availing connection. At the time of disconnection how much amount will be refunded is not stated. According to the petitioner, at the time of disconnection they agreed to return back Rs.1000/- as per the money back offer. 1st respondent is further stated in the counter that since this respondent has not received any amount towards refund deposit the claim for the same is baseless. The complainant has availed the connection under the money back scheme. Rs.2020/- has also paid by him. The money back offer is Rs.1000/-. The respondents cannot escape from the liability by stating no amount is accepted towards refund deposit. If much more amount is to be paid by the petitioner, they had to expose it at the time of connection. No such attempt is made by the respondent. No such case is there. Since the 1st respondent is the Circle Manager he can not escape from liability. 2nd respondent is the authorized dealer. He is also liable for the petitioner. This is a clear unfair trade practice committed by the respondents. Hence they are answerable to the complaint. 7. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of payment till realization. Further directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards costs. 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 12th day of August 2008.
