BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 321/2002 Filed on 25.07.2002<br /> Dated : 29.08.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Justin John, House No. 141, Souparnika, N.S.S Karayogam Lane, Anayara P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 029.<br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1.M/s Escotel Mobile Communications Pvt. Ltd., Manathottam Chambers, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 2.Satheesh Nair, General Manager, Customer Care, Escotel Mobile Communications Pvt. Ltd., Mercy Estate, 4th Floor, Ravipuram, M.G. Road, Kochi – 682 015.<br /> <br /> (By adv. V.K. Mohan Kumar)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 24.01.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 23.07.2008, the Forum on 29.08.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER <br /> SRI.G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant had taken a mobile phone connection from the opposite parties on 16.10.2001 by paying Rs. 1879/-. The complainant was residing at Anayara where the net work facility was weak. Suppressing this opposite parties received the said amount and gave connection. Opposite parties failed to render satisfactory services to the complainant after connection. Even after repeated requests opposite parties failed to do so. Opposite parties agreed to provide roaming facility and as such complainant remitted Rs. 2000/- on 13.11.2001. But the roaming facility was not made available to the complainant when complainant was at Goa, Retnagiri and other places. Complainant could not enjoy such facility except two calls from Thirur and Kozhikode. No other facilities were provided by the opposite parties thereby caused mental agony to the complainant. So complainant requested the opposite party to disconnect the connection and provide compensation. Opposite parties took steps partly on 20.07.2002, but not given back Rs. 2000/- remitted by the complainant for roaming facilities. Hence this complaint claiming refund of Rs. 2000/- with interest and Rs. 15000/- towards compensation and costs of the complaint. <br /> Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and it is admitted that complainant had taken mobile phone connection from the opposite party on 16.10.2001 by paying Rs. 1879/-. Complainant was residing at Anayara where net work facility was not at all weak. The facilities and services available to the opposite parties are made known to the complainant at the time of taking the connection and also known to the public at large through various media and advertisement. The rental charges and other charges are governed by Government of India and Indian Telephone Regulatory Authority. Opposite parties are rendering efficient and good service to their customers. The exchange of messages by the complainant is depending according to his need and capacity to pay. The roaming facility was also made available to the complainant. Absolutely there is no relationship with the opposite party for the loss and inconvenience caused to the complainant during his journey with mobile facility and services rendered by opposite parties. All possible actions had taken on the request of the complainant. The allegation that opposite parties failed in giving complete facility to the complainant is not correct and hence denied. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation because he has not incurred any loss due to deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Complainant has not incurred Rs. 500/- for any enquiries with opposite parties. The total amount claimed in the complaint is without any basis. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked twenty six documents as Exts. P1 to P26. On behalf of opposite parties, 2nd opposite party has filed an affidavit of himself as DW1 and marked two documents as Exts. D1 and D2.<br /> <br /> Points (i) & (ii):-Admittedly, complainant had taken a mobile phone connection from the opposite parties on 16.10.2001 by paying Rs. 1879/-. Ext. P1 is the copy of receipt dated 16.10.2001 seen issued by the opposite parties in the name of complainant evidencing the payment of Rs. 1879/- to opposite parties by the complainant. As per Ext. P1 the mobile phone No. is 9847062609. It has been the case of the complainant that the complainant was residing at Anayara where the network facility was not available. It has been resisted by opposite parties by stating that the facilities and services that are available to the opposite parties are made known to the complainant at the time of taking the connection and also known to the public at large through various media and advertisements. Main grievance of the complainant was that complainant did not get roaming facility from the opposite parties though opposite parties had received Rs. 2000/- from the complainant for roaming facility. Submission by the opposite parties is that the roaming facility was made available to the complainant. Ext. P2 is the copy of receipt for Rs. 2000/- seen issued by opposite parties to the complainant towards STD/ISD deposit. Ext. P3 is the copy of the letter dated 21.03.2002 seen sent by the complainant to opposite party regarding fraudulent connection, disconnection and remedial measures. As per Ext. P3 opposite party promised that complainant would be provided roaming facility in Retnagiri etc. but when complainant proceeded to Ratnagiri on 27.01.2002 complainant could not enjoy such facility except two calls from Thirur and Kozhikkodu only. Submission by the complainant is that his calls in Retnagiri, Goa, Kollam, Alappuzha etc. remained fruitless despite all his efforts. Complainant went on to say that he felt astonished, cheated and hoodwinked on false promises of opposite party. Further submitted that opposite parties flouted all norms of customer care and decency and that complainant requested opposite parties to disconnect the facility forthwith. Ext. P6 is the copy of the letter dated 09.04.2002 addressed to the complainant by the opposite party wherein it has been stated that “we sincerely request the inconveniences caused to you and assure you to do our best to ensure such instances do not occur in future...................”. “We have also arranged to reduce the monthly membership fees charged for automatic roaming facility in your account”. Ext. P7 is the copy of the letter seen sent to opposite party by the complainant thereby complainant had requested the opposite party to cancel the subscribership of the complainant with opposite party forthwith and pay compensation for non-providing of facilities and interest for deposited amount. Ext. P8 is the copy of letter seen sent to the complainant with reference to the said mobile connection. Ext. P8 letter reads as under:<br /> “We are in receipt of your letter addressed to Mr. Satheesh Nair and we take note of your concern expressed. We understand your grievance on having put through a great difficulty in using the connection while on roaming. We wish to clarify that in the discussion Mr. Satheesh had with you, only the rentals on roaming were committed to be waived off. However, considering the inconvenience faced by you and the non-usage of your connection, as a token of our commitment to you we are waiving off the membership fee on plan changed from the day of activation till 10th April amounting to Rs. 873.96. The adjustment passed in the account for the same will be effected in the subsequent bill. We request you to make the payment of Rs. 658.59 being pro-rate monthly line charge of Rs. 156/- and the call charges of Rs. 17.25 made during this period. We are a customer friendly organization and we regret that our actions have given you an erroneous perception of the quality of our services. We shall, through continuous effort try to deliver the kind of service you expect from us. Please accept our apologies if there has been any misunderstanding in our communications and discussions with”. Ext. P9 is the copy of the letter dated 25.05.2002 seen sent by the complainant to opposite party regarding Escotel connection, irregular activation, disconnection etc. Ext. P14 is the copy of letter dated 20 July 2002 issued by opposite parties regarding the refund of deposit for mobile connection. As per Ext. P14 as requested by the complainant, the mobile connection stands disconnected permanently and opposite party has enclosed a cheque for Rs. 1487/- towards full and final settlement of account. According to the complainant, opposite party never given back Rs. 2000/- remitted towards the cost of roaming facility. This complaint is for getting back the said amount of Rs. 2000/- together with compensation and cost. Complainant had requested the opposite parties to refund the deposited amounts for roaming facility but opposite parties did not respond positively. The main thrust of argument advanced by opposite party is that the roaming facility was made available to the complainant and that there was absolutely no relationship with the opposite party for the losses and inconveniences caused to the complainant during his journey with mobile facility and service rendered by the opposite party. It is pertinent to point out that as per Exts. P3, P7 and P9 complainant had requested the opposite parties to disconnect mobile connection due to non-availability of roaming facility. Opposite party admitted the non-availability of roaming facility and arranged to reduce the monthly membership fee charged as per Ext. P6 and Ext. P8. Complainant has been examined, but not cross examined by the opposite party. Hence the deposition of the complainant remains uncontroverted. No material on record to show that after disconnection the said amount of Rs. 2000/- remitted for roaming facility was given back to the complainant. In view of the above and in the interest of natural justice we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Deficiency in service is proved by Ext. P6 and P8. <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 2000/- towards cost of roaming facility and Rs. 1000/- towards cost of the complaint. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% if not paid within two months from the date of order. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 29th August 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> BEENAKUMARI. A: MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA: MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 321/2002<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> PW1 - Justin John <br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> P1 - Photocopy of receipt No. K/00/124725 dated 16.10.2001. <br /> P2 - Photocopy of receipt No. TVM/22964/01-02 dated 13.11.2001.<br /> <br /> P3 - Photocopy of letter issued to the opposite party by the complainant dated 21.03.2002.<br /> <br /> P4 - Photocopy of cash receipt No. K/01/288827 dated 13.11.2001 for Rs. 225/-.<br /> P5 - Photocopy of letter dated 12.01.2002 from the opposite party.<br /> P6 - Photocopy of letter dated 09.04.2002 from the opposite party.<br /> P7 - Photocopy of letter dated 18.04.2002 issued to the opposite party by complainant. <br /> <br /> P8 - Photocopy of letter dated 02.05.2002 issued by the opposite party. <br /> <br /> P9 - Photocopy of letter dated 25.05.2002 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. <br /> <br /> P12 - Photocopy of letter dated 29.05.2002 issued to the complainant by the opposite party.<br /> <br /> P13 - Photocopy of letter issued to the opposite party by the complainant.<br /> <br /> P14 - Photocopy of letter dated 20.07.2002 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> P15 - Photocopy of summary statement of A/c No. 00391943 dated 04.11.2001 issued by the opposite party. <br /> <br /> P16 - Photocopy of summary statement of A/c No. 00391943 dated 04.12.2001 issued by the opposite party. <br /> P17 - Photocopy of itemised call statement of Bill No. 0001437589.<br /> P18 - Photocopy of summary statement of A/c No. 00391943 dated 04.01.2002.<br /> P19 - Photocopy of itemised call statement of Bill No. 0001489018.<br /> P20 - Photocopy of summary statement dated 04.02.2002.<br /> P21 - Photocopy of itemised statement of invoice No. 0001539785.<br /> P22 - Photocopy of summary statement dated 04.03.2002.<br /> P23 - Photocopy of summary statement of bill dated 04.04.2002.<br /> P24 - Photocopy of summary statement of bill dated 04.05.2002.<br /> P25 - Photocopy of summary statement of bill dated 04.06.2002.<br /> P26 - Photocopy of summary statement of bill dated 04.07.2002.<br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> D1 - Photocopy of subscriber agreement form Sr. No. 331822 dated 16.10.2001.<br /> <br /> D2 - Photocopy of letter dated 09.04.2002 from the complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />