KERALA STATE CONSUMENR DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.486/06 JUDGMENT DATED.20.08.08 PRESENT:- SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1.M/s.Reliance Infocom Services, 3rd Floor, Maker Chambers 4, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai, : APPELLANTS represented by Managing Director 2. M/s.Reliance Web World, Palarivattom, Kochi -24, Represented by its Manager. (By Adv.George Cheriyan Karippaparambil) Vs Mr.K.C.Damodaran, S/o.Chandrasekharan, Regional Agmark Laboratory, : RESPONDENT Willington Island, Kochi – 3, residing at B-41, CPWD Qtrs, Kakkanad, Kochi – 30. JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in OP.No.478/05 of CDRF, Ernakulam against the order dated.14.3.06 wherein and whereby they are under orders to return to the complainant a sum of Rs.21,000/- with costs of Rs.500/- 2. The grievances of the complainant before the Forum were that he had availed a mobile phone connection on 5.6.03 from the opposite parties on payment of Rs.21,000/- and that the handset was purchased from Palakkad as advised by the second opposite party. It was the very case of the complainant that though so many offers were made by the opposite parties, none were found to be effective and he had surrendered the handset on 10.4.04 as requested by the opposite parties. His further grievance was that even though the opposite parties promised to settle the claim of the complainant within three days from the date of surrender on 10.4.04, the opposite parties failed to fulfill the same and as such the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.21,000/- with 12%, interest, compensation of Rs.5000/- and costs. 3. The opposite parties filed version admitting that the complainant had opted for PON 1 tariff plan and paid Rs.21,000/- including Rs.3000/- towards one time non-refundable club membership fee. It was contended that the averments in the complaint were false and the complainant was using the set without any break till 31.3.04 and the set was surrendered on 10.4.04 and by that time the complainant had to pay call charges to the tune of Rs.6214/-. It is their further case that if the complainant wanted to exit from the tariff he had to pay Rs.1040/- being the charges for exiting from the tariff plan availed by the complainant. The opposite parties also submitted that they were ready and willing to pay the balance amount to the complainant. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and documents A1 to A14. On the side of the opposite parties DW1 was examined and documents B1 to B13 were marked. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted his arguments based on the contentions taken in the version as well as the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. It is his very case that the complainant had availed the tariff plan (PON1) accepting the conditions and it was unfair on his part to turn round and say that he was not aware of the conditions. It is further argued that the complainant had been using the set without any break up to 31.3.04 and the set was surrendered on 10.04.04 by which time the call charges to be paid by the complainant was Rs.6214/-. He has also argued that Rs.3000/- as shown in Ext.B1 was non refundable which the complainant also had the knowledge at the time of availing mobile phone connection. It is further argued by him that as per the condition, if the complainant wanted to exit from the tariff plan he had to pay further sum of Rs.1040/-. The learned counsel reiterated the fact that the opposite parties were willing to return the balance amount after deducting the sum of Rs.10,254/- being the non refundable club membership fee, call charges up to 10.4.04 and closure charges. 6. We find in force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the complainant had availed the mobile phone connection on payment of Rs.21,000/- as evidenced by Ext.A1. It is to be noted that as per Ext.B1, Rs.3000/- is non refundable as it is one time club membership fee. It is also seen that the amount of Rs.6214/- is due from the complainant to the opposite parties towards call charges. The appellant’s case is that if the complainant wants to exit from the tariff plan availed by him an amount of Rs.1040/- is also to be paid for enabling him to close the connection. It is further to be noted that the complainant has feigned ignorance regarding the terms and conditions which cannot be accepted in the nature and circumstances of the case. He had taken the connection on 5.6.03 and the same was surrendered only on 10.4.04. If the complainant was experiencing any difficulties he could have immediately surrendered the mobile phone connection to the opposite parties and asked for the refund of the money. In the instant case he has been using the mobile phone for nearly one year and in the said circumstance it cannot be said that he is not liable to obey the conditions contained in the brochure produced as Ext.B1. Hence we find that the complainant is liable to pay the call charges as well as the closure charges. He is also not entitled to get the one time club membership fee of Rs.3000/-. In the result the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order to the extent that the appellants/opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.10,746/- (Rs.21,000 – Rs.10,254) to the complainant. The cost of Rs.500/- awarded by the forum below is also liable to be paid by the appellants. It is made clear that the appellants are to pay the above amounts within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of Rs.10,746/- will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment. In the nature and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU | | 
