KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO: 341/2007
JUDGMENT DATED:15-11-2010
PRESENT
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Mr. Mohan Thambi,
Chief Executive Officer,
Reliance Infocomm Ltd.,
Ernakulam.
2. Mr.P.K.Ravindran,
Reliance Infocom Ltd.,
Cluster Head, 5th Floor,
KVR Towers, South Bazar,
Kannur-2.
3. Rakesh.R.Prabhu,
Reliance Infocom Ltd.,
5th Floor,KVR Towers,
South Bazar,Kannur-2. : APPELLANTS
4. Nileesh,
Near Makkani,
South Bazar,Kannur-2.
5. Mr.T.R.Balachandran,
Commercial Head,
Reliance Infocom Ltd.,
Ernakulam.
6. M/s Reliance Infocom Ltd.,
Maker Chambers,
IV 222, Nariman Point,
Bombay.
7. M/s Reliance Infocom Ltd.,
A & P Arcade,
Sahodaran Ayyappan Road,
Kadavanthara, Kochi-16.
(By Adv.Sri. George Cheriyan Karippaparambil)
Vs.
Mr.M.K.Unnikrishnan,
Manager, IOB (Rtd.) : RESPONDENT
Gouri Vilas, Chalad,
Jayanthi Road, Kannur.
(By Adv.Sri.P.M.M. Najeeb Khan)
JUDGMENT
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in OP.148/05 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in barring the calls to the mobile connection which was taken by the complainant from the opposite party M/s Reliance Infocom Ltd. It is also alleged that the opposite party changed the scheme without prior consent or intimation to the complainant. The opposite parties entered appearance and denied the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that they are only staff of the 7th opposite party M/s Reliance Infocom Ltd and the staff of the 7th opposite party cannot be made personally liable.
2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1. No evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite parties other than B1 document to show amalgamation of M/s Reliance Infocom Ltd. with M/s Reliance Communication Ltd.
3. The complainant as PW1 has deposed about the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties including the staff of M/s Reliance Infocom Ltd. Admittedly the respondent/complainant subscribed to a scheme and thereby he surrendered his Nokia Mobile handset. As per the said scheme the complainant has been remitting Rs.349/- per month. Subsequently he requested for change of the scheme ie from post paid to pre paid. But the opposite parties refused the aforesaid request made by the complainant as there had some technical problems. The scheme in which the complainant was continuing has been changed without intimation. It is the definite case of the complainant that the opposite parties barred the mobile calls to his handset No.9388713927 without giving prior intimation or information. Thus, the opposite parties committed deficiency of service by disconnecting or barring the calls to the complainant’s mobile handset.
4. The case of the opposite parties that the complainant was informed by SMS or other intimation cannot be believed without any supporting document. In fact there is nothing on record to support the case of the appellants/opposite parties that prior intimation was given to the complainant prior to the barring of the calls to the handset of the complainant. Hence, the forum below is perfectly justified in finding deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in barring the calls to the handset of the complainant.
5. The respondent/complainant claimed Rs.1.lakh as compensation for the inconvenience and mental agony suffered by him on account of the barring of calls to his mobile handset. The Forum below awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- based on the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. But, the Forum below has not given any reasonable explanation for awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Considering the nature and gravity of deficiency of service, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Forum below can be considered on the higher side. The complainant as PW1 has spoken to about the inconvenience and mental agony suffered by him. It is to be noted that the complainant has also committed some sort of omission in remitting the payment towards the call charges. It is true that the appellants/opposite parties barred the calls without giving any prior intimation to the complainant being the customer (complainant) of the appellants/ opposite parties. So, the respondent/complainant is to be compensated for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by him. This commission is of the view that a compensation of Rs.10,000/- can be considered as reasonable compensation for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. So, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- ordered by the Forum below is modified and reduced to Rs.10,000/-. The cost of Rs.2000/- ordered by the Forum below is confirmed. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is modified with respect to quantum of compensation. In all other respects, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is upheld.
In the result the appeal is allowed partly. Impugned order dated:9th February 2007 passed by the CDRF, Kannur in OP.148/05 is modified and thereby the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Forum below is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. Cost of Rs.2000/- ordered by the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, there will be no order as to costs.
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
VL.
