DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 30th Day of December 2011 Present : Smt.Seena H, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 29/06/2011 (C.C.No.98/2011) Rajithkumar, S/o.Bhaskaran, Parayilveedu, Keralapuram, Koduvayur, Chittur Taluk. (Adv.T.V.Krishnadas) - Complainant V/s 1.Managing Director, Tata Indicom, Tata Tele Services Ltd., Palarivattom, Kochi (By Adv.P.Muralidharan) 2.Tata Indicom, Tata Tele Services Ltd., Palarivattom, Kochi. (Rep.by Managing Director) (By Adv.P.Muralidharan) 3. The Managing Director, Tata Indicom Cellular Ltd. Near K.S.E.B. Sulthanpetta Section Office, T.B.Road, Palakkad - Opposite parties O R D E R By Smt.SEENA.H. PRESIDENT Case of the complaint: Complainant availed a mobile phone connection from opposite parties and used the same for some period. But the opposite parties failed to provide the offers and services as assured at the time of availing connection. Thereafter complainant was not using the said connection. Later complainant received a lawyer notice demanding Rs.715/- towards the bill and Rs.750/- towards the legal fee and also requesting the complainant to appear before the arbitrator. There after also complainant received lawyer notice demanding amounts. Complainant appeared before the arbitrator and the matter was settled. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.758/- and opposite party endorsed ‘no dues’ in the notice. Thereafter also opposite parties issued a series of lawyer notices claiming amount. Hence the complaint. 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed version contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum and matter has to be decided by the arbitrator. Opposite parties admits that the complainant is their customer. Sending demand notice for arbitration process is with good intention for amicable settlement for payment dues from the petitioner. It was told to the complainant that balance amount payable shall be processed for waiver and further payment need be made only if the waiver had not been approved by the higher authorities. Company is not claiming anything from the petitioner now. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Complainant filed chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A7 Marked. 1st opposite party filed chief affidavit. 3rd opposite party has not filed any chief affidavit. No documentary evidence on the part of opposite parties. Issues for consideration are - Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
- If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to ?
Issue No.1 & 2 The definite case of the complainant is that opposite parties failed to provide the offer and services as promised at the time of availing connection. Again even after settlement of dues, opposite parties caused a series of lawyer notice demanding bill amount which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. 1st and 2nd opposite parties admits complainant to be their customer. Notice were earlier send for the amicable settlement of dues. It was informed to the complainant that the waiver of balance amount will be at the approval of the higher authorities. We have gone through the entire evidence on record. Complainant is the customer of opposite parties is admitted. Complainant has submitted that opposite party failed to provide the offer and services as promised. It is not evident from the complaint or documents that what is the actual offer and services denied by the opposite parties. Regarding the issuance of the lawyer notices one after the other, it is seen that complainant has settled the dues on 28/5/10 as evidenced by Ext.A2 wherein it is specifically stated that full and final settlement done and Rs.758/- to be waived off and No dues. The document was marked without any objection. So it has to inferred that complainant has settled his dues on 28/5/10. Further say of the opposite parties that waiver of the balance amount shall be at the approval of the higher authorities is not supported by any evidence. On the contrary in Ext.A2, it is specifically stated that Rs.758/- to be waived off. If that be so, further legal notices claiming the amount and legal fee and request for appearance before the arbitrator is illegal and hence deficiency in service on their part. The act certainly cause mental agony and hardship to the complainant. The amount claimed by the complainant seems to be on a higher side for which no evidence is also forthcoming. Considering the fact that complainant has suffered mental agony, we are of the view that an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation shall meet the ends of justice. In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization. Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of December 2011 Sd/- Seena.H President Sd/- Preetha G Nair Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K. Member APPENDIX Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext.A1 – Notice issued by opposite party to the complainant dt.12/6/09 Ext.A2 – Notice issued by opposite party to the complainant dt.5/5/10 Ext.A3 – Notice issued by opposite party to the complainant dt.1/11/10 Ext.A4 – Notice issued by opposite party to the complainant dt.5/4/11 Ext.A5 – Copy of lawyer notice dated 26/4/11 along with postal receipt & acknowledgement card sent to opposite party Ext.A6 – Notice issued by opposite party to the complainant dt.3/5/11 Ext.A7 – Reply to lawyer notice dated 16/5/11 Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite parties Nil Cost Allowed Rs.500/- allowed as cost of the proceedings. | 
