ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The gist of the complaint is as follows:<br /> <br /> The Complainant availed a telephone connection on 05.02.2004. In order to avail the connection of telephone the Complainant had given Rs.1,800/- to the Opposite Party. The Telephone was not working properly immediately after the installation. The Opposite Parties assured the Complainant that the defect will be rectified within three days. Even at that time the defects could not be patched up even though the Opposite Party came after Nine days. <br /> <br /> (Contd...... 2)<br /> <br /> 2 -<br /> <br /> The Complainant paid back the telephone instrument with covering letter on 17.02.2004 to the<br /> Opposite Party No.1. The advance amount given to the Opposite Party was requested to be returned back. Again the Complainant sent the lawyer notice on 23.2.2004 to the Opposite Party No.1 to get back the advance amount. All the notices and request were unanswered and more over the Opposite Party sent bill to the Complainant for Rs.288/-. The call number entered in the bill are only the numbers to which the calls are made for the purpose of testing the telephone. Even the call made for testing the phone instruments was also accounted in Opposite Party's account and the Opposite Party levied a charge for the same. The act of the Opposite Party is an absolutely deficiency of service. There may be a direction to the Opposite Party to pay back the advance amount with 18% interest from 05.2.2004 till the date of payment and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and further the bill dated 16.2.2004 of Rs.288/- may be ordered to be withdrawn.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance, the Opposite Party at the outset contented that the Complainant is not a consumer. The telephone connection of the Complainant <br /> was rendered by the Opposite Party on 05.02.2004. The deposit paid by the Complainant<br /> Rs.1,000/- and land phone of the Opposite Party was installed on the same day and Rs.800/- was given towards installation charges. The allegations of the Complainant that telephone was not working properly from the beginning onwards is baseless. There were some feeble disturbances while using telephone on that time and it was timely attended also by the Opposite Party. The technitions and experts of the Opposite Parties checked the telephone in presence of the Complainant and convinced that the telephone is free from defects. Even then the Complainant insisted the Opposite Party to take back the telephone and terminate the service. The repayment of Rs.1,800 was immediately demanded by the Complainant. The installation<br /> (Contd...... 3)<br /> - 3 -<br /> <br /> charges Rs.800/- is not refundable according to the Opposite Party. Where as deposit amount Rs.1,000/- is refundable subject to reduction of outstanding amount. There is bill of Rs.280/- <br /> due from the Complainant. The subscription charges due from the Complainant is not paid. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> Points which are to be considered:<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party?<br /> 2.Relief and cost.<br /> <br /> Point No.1:<br /> The Complainant is examined as PW1. The covering letter addressed to the Opposite Party is the Ext.A1. The lawyer notice sent to the Opposite Party No.1 dated 23.02.2004 is the Ext.A2. The bill of due date 18.3.2004 for the payment of Rs.288/- is the Ext.A3. It is seen that another notice sent dated 10.3.2004. The copy of the notice is marked as Ext.A4. <br /> The Opposite Party did not tendered any oral evidence. Ext.B1 is the copy of the application <br /> given by the Complainant to Opposite Party. It is admitted that the Complainant was demanded for the payment of Rs.288/-. The Opposite Parties did not file any proof affidavit and no oral evidence was tendered apart from the documents Ext.B1 and B2 marked. Ext. B2 is the Power of Attorney authorising Power of Attorney Holder to appear in behalf of the company and to conduct the case. The evidence rendered by the Complainant shows that the Complainant was in use of the telephone supplied by the Opposite Party. The request were made by the Complainant to get the telephone repaired. The notice sent to the Opposite Party was also not responded. From the above inferences, it can be presumed that the telephone installed has not<br /> (Contd.......4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> <br /> been working properly. The Opposite Party is bound to rectify the defects of the telephone but it appeared to be not done the point No.1 is found against the Opposite Party. <br /> <br /> Point No.2:<br /> The Complainant had given Rs.1,800/- towards the telephone connection. The contention of the Opposite Party is that Rs.1,000/- is collected towards the deposit and Rs.800/- is not refundable being it is collected towards the installation charges. The Opposite Party had to meet the expenses for the installation of telephone connection. The Ext.A5 series shows that the bill dated 18.3.2004 onwards towards the months of May 2004, June 2004 and July 2004 bills of amount were supplied. The bill dated 18.3.2004 the amount due shown is Rs.288/- . According to the complainant even at the time of, immediately after the installation, the instrument was not working properly and the service rendered was defective. The Complainant is not entitled to give the Opposite Party the amount levied in Ext.A5 series. The deposit amount Rs.1,000/- is to be refunded to the Complainant. The opposite Party has no justification for the issuance of <br /> bill concurrently though the telephone is not working. The bills in Ext.A5 series issued to the Complainant are beyond reasons. The Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.2,000/- for the deficiency in service of the Opposite Party along with the cost. <br /> <br /> In the result the Opposite Party is directed to withdraw the bills No.0012693482420504 dated 07.6.2003, 0012693482420404 dated 08.5.2004, 0012693482420604 dated 12.7.2004 0012693482420204 dated 18.3.2004 and refund the Complainant Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) received as the deposit sum. The Opposite Party is also directed to give the Complainant Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards the compensation and Rs. 1,000/-<br /> <br /> (Contd......5)<br /> - 5 -<br /> (Rupees One thousand only) towards the cost within one month from the date of this order. In case of any failure on the part of the Opposite Party the Complainant can invoke the provisions of law to execute this order. <br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of January 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> <br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witnesses for Complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1. Bimal Kumar. Complainant.<br /> <br /> Witnesses for Opposite Parties:<br /> <br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for Complainant:<br /> <br /> A1. Copy of the letter. dt:17.02.2004.<br /> A2. Copy of the lawyer notice. dt:23.02.2004.<br /> A3. Bill. <br /> A4. Copy of the letter. dt:10.03.2004.<br /> A5 Series<br /> (4 in numbers) Bill. <br /> <br /> Exhibits for Opposite Party:<br /> <br /> B1. Copy of Application. dt:04.02.2004.<br /> B2. Copy of Power of Attorney. dt:18.02.2004. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.