Telangana

Warangal

48/07

V.Venkataswamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

GM,Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

P.Prabhakar Reddy

10 Sep 2007

ORDER


District Consumer Forum, Warangal
District Consumer Forum, Balasamudram,Hanmakonda
consumer case(CC) No. 48/07

V.Venkataswamy 		...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

GM,Telecom 		...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL

Present:       Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,

                                                President.

 

 

                                                Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,

                                                Member

 

                                               And

 

Smt. V.J. Praveena,

                                                Member.

 

 Friday, the 02nd day of May, 2008.

 

CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 48/2007

 

Between:

 

V. Venkat Swamy, S/o Late Bugilaiah Swamy,

Age: about 60 years, Occ: Govt. Employee,

R/o H.No.2-7-489,

Excise Colony, Subedari,

Hanamkonda,

Warangal District.

                      … Complainant

 

AND

The General Manager,

Telecom Department,

K.M.C., Warangal.

… Opposite Party

 

 

Counsel for the Complainant      : Sri. P. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party  : Sri K. Yadhagiri Swamy, Advocate.

 

                                                   ORDER

 Per Smt. V.J. Praveena, Member

 

          This is a complaint filed by the complainant V. Venkat Swamy against the Opposite party Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to exempt or delete the installation charges/Activation charges imposed in the bill dt.4-11-2005 and to restore Tharang mobile and land line connections and award costs.

 

          The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

 

1)      On seeing the paper publication of the Opposite party the complainant approached the Opposite party and purchased the THARANG mobile wireless phone on par with landline telephone connection bearing No.2457785 after paying Rs.264/- towards cost of wireless and was allotted a telephone No.2111383 by the Opposite party. Usually the complainant using the telephone, but not received the first month bill i.e., for the month of October, 2005. After due enquiry by the complainant in the bill counter the bill amount was 700/- and rent of cell phone is Rs.164/- for bi-monthly.  On seeing the bill the complainant addressed a letter to Opposite party to furnish details of bill for two months.  The complainant got issued legal notice to the Opposite party seeking clarification regarding installation charges in the bill.  Opposite party sent reply notice dt.4-4-2006 elucidating the details of imposing the installation charges in the bill stating that they are strictly following the rule position and they are imposing since 19-2-2001.  The officials disconnected the Tharang mobile and land line amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaint filed the present complaint for his redressal.

 

          The Opposite party filed the Written version contending in brief as follows:

 

2)      It is true that the complainant is a subscriber and had a telephone from the Opposite party.  The complainant being aware and after through enquiry availed the scheme i.e., Will Mobile-100 plan. The complainant’s dispute regarding installation charges are baseless and denied.  The complainant is not entitled any relief.  As such the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed.

 

3)      The complainant in support of his claim filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-19.  On behalf of Opposite party one K. Veera Reddy  filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.B-1 to B-4.

 

          Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for grant of installation charges/Activation charges imposed in the bill dated 4-11-2005, to restore the telephone connections Tharang Mobile wireless phone bearing No.2111383 and Land Line connection bearing No.2457785 lying in the house of 2-7-489 and costs and damages.

 

          After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:

 

4)      The case of the complainant is that the complainant got telephone connection from Opposite party with Telephone No.73785 in the year 1992 and after it was changed to No.2457785. Since 1992 onwards the complainant is paying bills regularly.  Thereafter a paper publication circulated by Opposite party with regard to launching of scheme Tharang Mobile wireless phone, after noticing the same by the complainant in newspaper, approached the Opposite party after knowing the details about the same purchased Tharang Mobile wireless phone on par with his landline connection No.2457785 after paying Rs.264/- towards cost of the connection under Telephone No.2111383 was allotted to complainant within 15 minutes on  5-10-2005.  During the period from 1-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 with a monthly rent of Rs.100/- to the Government Employees as a special scheme Bonaja paper publication cutting.  Thereafter he received telephone bill for the month of October, 2005 and November, 2005 for the land Phone No.2457785 and accordingly the complainant paid the bill dated 17-12-2005 i.e., Ex.A-4.  The complainant submitted that he has not received the bill for the month of October, 2005 for which he enquired in the bill counter of Opposite party and noticed that bill amount shown 700 and rent of cell phone is 164/-,  there was nothing details on the bill.  On request of the complainant, Opposite party furnished the bill particulars for the cell phone No.2111383 as per letter shown in Ex.A-5 dated 29-12-2005 and the Opposite party issued the bill details showing an amount of Rs.723/- stating that an amount of Rs.500/- as installation charges, LCC Rs.48, Rent Rs.90/-, Service Tax Rs.64, with Surcharges Rs.20/- for only period of 25 days from 5-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 as per Ex.A-7.  Then the complainant sent a letter to Opposite party on 18-01-2006 requesting the Opposite party to delete installation charges as it is not mentioned in the paper publication before starting the scheme not elucidated at the time of receiving telephone connection.  So the contention of complainant that imposition of posing of Rs.500/-  towards installation charges as just unfair and arbitrary.  And he further submitted that he purchased a mobile cell phone bearing No.21113835 on par with land line connection with for which the Opposite party has not imposed any installation charges or activation charges. The same was surrendered to Opposite party he did not raise any objection nor posed any installation charges or activation charges on this account.  The Opposite party is directed to perform the bill records.  Further he stated in his complaint that in another incident where one customer namely V. Suresh Kumar  has purchased WLL Mobile cell phone for Rs.264/- on par with land line connection phone No.2111091 was allotted by Opposite party for the year, 2004.  The above person namely  V. Suresh Kumar  has stated that no installation charges or activation charges are imposed on this telephone cell. 

 

5)      The contention of the complainant is that he surrendered the above phone during the above scheme is vogue during the period of May, 2004 to 2005 i.e., 2-7-2005 and the contention of the Opposite party is that now the scheme is launched during the period from 1-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 is a plan of will Mobile 100.  Thereafter he filed the same case before this Forum to delete the amount of Rs.500/- imposed on installation charges and with cost and also with damages. 

 

6)      The Written Version filed by the Opposite party stating that Opposite party has not liable to pay any amount because new scheme was offered launched during the period between 1-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 is a plan of Will Mobile 100 and scheme attracts the provision of installation charges and provison of Rs.500/- and it is Tharang Scheme so the Opposite party is not at all liable to pay an amount of Rs.500/- to the Complainant.

 

          After arguments of both side counsels our reasons are like this:

 

7)      The complainant is not entitled to get an amount of Rs.500/- with costs and damages.  Because Exs.B-1 filed by the Opposite party clearly goes to show that Plan 100 and plan 799, for Plan 100 Activation installation charges shows Rs.500, for Plan 799 it shows only NIL.  So it clearly goes to shows that the publication i.e, Ex.A-1 certainly for Plan 100 if any person purchased a mobile cell, for installation he has to pay levy charges of Rs.500/-.  When it is clearly mentioned in Ex.B-1 it is the duty of the complainant before entering into contract i.e., before purchasing the cell from the Opposite party he has to look after all these things and in this case already in Ex.B-1 it clearly mentioned that for installation charge Rs.100/-, for Plan 100 the persons who are going to buy the cells, they have to pay and further Ex.B-2 it is a letter and Ex.B-3 Courier Receipt and ExB-4 is the Authorisation letter issued by General Manager, Warangal.  Out of Ex.B-1 to B-4 Ex.B-1 is the authenticated document so as per this only Tharang scheme plan No.1 an d installation fee is Rs.500/- it is clear cut that the Opposite party need not pay anything to the complainant.  Hence, we answer this point accordingly in favour of the opposite party against the complainant.

 

8)      In the result there are no merits in the complaint filed by the complainant and accordingly the same is dismissed but without costs.

 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today the 2nd May, 2008.)

 

                                                Sd/-                            Sd/-            Sd/-

                                      Member                 Member       President

                                                      District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

On behalf of Complainant                          On behalf of Opposite Party

 

Affidavit of complainant filed                          Affidavit on behalf of O.P. filed.

                                                                

 

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of complainant

 

  1. Ex.A-1 Paper clippling of Opposite party Advertisement.
  2. Ex.A-2 Paper clipping for Tharang mobile offer.
  3. Ex.A-3 Reciept of Opposite party.
  4. Ex.A-4 Xerox copy of bill issued by Opposite party, 4-12-05.
  5. Ex.A-5  Letter by complainant to Opposite party dt.29-12-05.
  6. Ex.A-6 Courier Receipt.
  7. Ex.A-7 Reply letter by Opposite party, dt.10-01-06.
  8. Ex.A-8 Letter by Complainant to Opposite party, dt.18-01-06.
  9. Ex.A-9 Courier Receipt.
  10.  Ex.A-10 Letter by Complainant to opposite party, dt.18-2-06.
  11.  Ex.A-11 O/copy of legal notice issued to Opposite parties, dt.30-3-06.
  12.  Ex.A-12 Reply to legal notice, dt.14-4-06.
  13.  Ex.A-13 Xerox copy of Thariff of Will Service.
  14.  Ex.A-14 Letter by Complainant to Opposite party, dt.1-5-06.
  15.  Ex.A-15 Courier Receipt.
  16.  Ex.A-16 Letter by Complainant to Opposite party, dt.13-6-06.
  17.  Ex.A-17 Receipt of courier.
  18.  Ex.A-18 Letter by complainant to Opposite party, dt.17-10-06.
  19.  Ex.A-19 Reply letter by O.p. dt.29-10-06 to complainant.

 

 

 

 On behalf of Opposite party.

 

  1. Ex.B-1 Thariff for Will.
  2. Ex.B-2 Reply to legal notice by Opposite party dt.15-2-07.
  3. Ex.B-3 Courier Receipt.
  4. Ex.B-4 Authorisation letter issued by Opposite party.

 

                                     

                            

 

                                                                                             Sd/-

                   PRESIDENT.