DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 26^th day of September, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.136/2007

A.H.Nowshad,

S/o.Hamsa,

Mugal House,

City Post Office,

Palakkad – 14. - Complainant

(By Adv.R.Manikandan)

Vs

1. Mr.Justies Daniel,

M/s.Reliance Communication Franchise,

26 and 27, Mangalam Towers,

Opp. Town Bus Stand,

T.B.Road, Palakkad.

2. M/s.Reliance Communication Ltd.,

Reliance House, Near Mardia Plaza,

Opp. C.G.Road,

Ahamadabad,

Gujarat 380 006. - Opposite parties

(By Adv.Jayan.C.Thomas)

O R D E R

By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

The complainant availed a telephone connection of the 2^nd opposite party from the office of the 1^st opposite party as per receipt No.KER/RCIL/A8.59849 dtd.03/06/06 and a hand set LGLSI 110. As per the scheme opted by the complainant an initial payment of Rs.2607.78 was made. After 40 days of availing the connection the aforesaid handset developed complaints. Complainant took the handset to the customer care center of the opposite parties and the same was acknowledged by their executives. The opposite parties customer care executives assured the complainant that another service executive will inspect the handset at the complainant's place and cure the defects. But even after the lapse of 10 days there was no response from the opposite parties. When the complainant contacted the executive, contrary to the said assurance given by them, he was asked to contact the representative of L.G.Company, since it was manufactured by them. It is the duty of opposite parties to arrange for the repairs. The complainant sent a request letter on 29/9/2006. Since there was no response, on 10/10/06, complainant sent a letter

to the opposite parties requesting to cancel the connection and refund the deposited amount. In the meantime complainant paid telephone bills for 2 months. When the complainant requested to cancel the connection the opposite party raised two bills including the period in which the hand set was under repair. At the time of providing connection the opposite parties has given assurance that any defects in the handset will be cured promptly or replaced and the service executive would come to the customer and do the needful. But the opposite parties failed to keep up the assurance. Hence the complainant caused a lawyer notice dtd.25/12/06 demanding the 1^st opposite party to refund the deposit amount and take back the handset. 1^st opposite party issued a reply dtd.05/01/07 stating that the customers have to take the set to the manufacturing point. The opposite parties has not so far attended the defects in the handset or repaired the same. The attitude of the opposite parties are unjustifiable and amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the complainant again caused a lawyer notice dtd.19/2/07 claiming refund of the deposit amount, value of the handset and compensation. The opposite parties neither paid the amount nor issued any reply. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to take back the handset and refund its value of Rs.1,500/-, refund Rs.1,000/- deposited by the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- and all the costs to the complainant.

2. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to both opposite parties. Notice served to opposite parties. But failed to appear before the forum. Hence opposite parties set ex-parte. On 17/09/08, 2^nd opposite party filed petition for setting aside the ex-parte order made against the 2^nd opposite party. That petition was allowed on terms. Petition dismissed as cost was not paid.

3. Complainant filed affidavit and documents. Exts.A1 to A8 marked on the side of complainant. Matter was heard.

4. Issues to be considered are;

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

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

5. Issues 1 & 2:

We perused relevant documents on record. It is evident from records that the complainant availed a telephone connection of the 2^nd opposite party from the office of the

1^st opposite party. According to Ext.A5 series the opposite parties issued telephone bills dtd.14/09/06, 14/10/06 and 14/11/06 in the name of the complainant. The complainant has not produced evidence to show that Ext.A5 bills are paid by the complainant. As per Ext.A2 the complainant had taken the handset to the customer care centre of opposite parties and had issued a customer voice form dtd.18/9/06. The opposite parties issued Ext.A2 customer voice form only because they had verified, confirmed and found some defects in the set. According to Ext.A5 series, the bills were issued for the period for which the opposite parties themselves acknowledged that the handset is having repairs. That itself clearly shows the deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. Further opposite parties has not adduced any contrary evidence to that of the complainant even though opportunity was given. Hence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has not produced separate bills for the value of handset and deposited amount. Hence we cannot arrive at the value of the handset and payment by way of deposit.

6. In view of the above discussions we hold the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is partly allowed.

7.We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.

8. Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th day of September, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Receipt No.KER/RCIL/A859849 dtd.03/06/06 for Rs.350/-

Ext.A2 – Copy of Customer Voice Form No.341592 dtd.18/09/06

Ext.A3 (Series)– Letter dtd.26/09/06 sent by complainant to Reliance Communications,

acknowledgement card and postal receipts. (3 in Nos)

Ext.A4 (Series) – Copy of letter sent by complainant to 1^st opposite party and

acknowledgement card (2 in Nos)

Ext.A5 (Series) - Bills dtd.14/09/06, 14/10/06, 14/11/06 (3 in Nos)

Ext.A6 (Series)– Copy of lawyer notice dtd.25/12/06 sent by complainant to 1^st opposite

party along with postal receipt (2 in Nos)

Ext.A7 – Reply notice issued by 1^st opposite party

Ext.A8 (Series)- Copy of lawyer notice dtd.19/02/07 sent by complainant to opposite parties

acknowledgement card and postal receipt (3 in Nos)

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Forum's exhibit

Nil

Costs (Allowed)

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.