Complaint filed on: 27-07-2018

                                 Disposed on: 31-12-2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No.66/2018

DATED THIS THE 31^st DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI.BALAKRISHNA V.MASALI, MEMBER

Complainant: -

Smt.Radhika,

W/o. Raghavendra,

Behind Kalidasa College,

Kalidasanagar, Sira gate,

Tumakuru town,

Karnataka state

(By Advocate Sri.Raghavendra.Y)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. Managing Director,

Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd,

3^rd floor, B-wing,

Fortune building,

Bharat Nagar,

Bandra-Kurla complex,

Mumbai – 400051

Maharashtra, India

2. The Branch Manager,

Reliance Jio Infocomm,

Local Branch Office,

BH Road, Tumakuru

(OP No.1 and 2 -by advocate

Sri.D.H.Maruthi)

ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite parties (herein after called as OPs), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant prays to direct the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.66,500=00 along with interest and to pay damages of Rs.30,000=00 towards deficiency in service and grant such other relief as prayed in the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief fact of the complaint is as under.

The complainant was applying the tower installation at her site/land on 26-3-3018. After receiving the complainant application No.458796510753 and 58796510585, Jio tower installation was approved on 13-4-2018 under registration No.INR 14500. The 1^st OP has sent massage to the complainant’s husband. Thereafter, the 1^st OP official was called the complainant’s husband to send property documents. As per the request of the 1^st OP, the complainant’s husband has sent all property documents to the 1^st OP Company through what8sup No.9583809814. After verification of the property documents, the 1^st OP official was sent Indian Bank account No.616304863 of Reliance Infocomm Ltd on 13-4-2018 and requested to pay processing fee of Rs.14,500=00. As per request of the 1^st OP, the complainant has paid the above said amount to the 1^st OP through NEFT, Karnataka Bank, BH Road, Tumakuru. On the same day, the 1^st OP sent confirmation letter to the complainant’s husband through what’sup No.8073215267.

The complainant further submitted that, after receiving the processing fee from the complainant, on 18-4-2018 the 1^st OP Company has sent tower package agreement and informed the complainant to fill the application. On the same day, the complainant’s husband has sent the filled tower package agreement through what’sup No.9583809814. Thereafter, the 1^st OP has sent another account No.20378675838 of SBI, Delhi gate branch and informed the complainant to send Rs.52,500=00. The complainant requested the 1^st OP that such amount was unable to pay and kindly reduce the amount.  Then, the 1^st OP has sent massage to the complainant to pay Rs.20,000=00. On 18-4-2018 the complainant’s husband has transferred the amount of Rs.15,000=00 and on 20-4-2018 Rs.11,000=00 through mobile. Thereafter, the 1^st OP has sent Bank Account Declaration Form to her husband account through what’sup and informed to fill and send the form. After sending the declaration form, the complainant’s husband has sent Rs.13,000=00 on 26-4-2018 through NEFT, Indian Bank. Further, the 1^st OP has demanded the complainant’s husband to pay Rs.13,000=00. Hence, on 10-5-2018 the complainant’s husband has paid the said amount through Stat Bank of India directly, Totally the complainant’s husband has paid Rs.66,500=00 to the 1^st OP.

The complainant further submitted that, 1^st OP has demanded the complainant’s husband to pay Rs.20,000=00. After payment, the 1^st OP has assured the complainant that, they will deposit Rs.15,00,000=00 to the complainant’s account. The complainant’s husband replied that, he is unable to pay that amount to the 1^st OP company and he requested that by deducting required amount, please deposit the advance amount of Rs.15,00,000=00. The 1^st OP Company has replied very vaguely and simply they demanded the amount without informing anything to the complainant. The 1^st OP Company has not responded properly in tower installation process. Hence, the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony. The complainant has issued a legal notice through RPAD and professional courier, but till today, there was no reply from the 1^st OP. Hence, there is a deficiency of servcie on the part of the OP. Hence, the complainant has come up with the present complaint.

3. After service of notice, the OP No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed common objection, contending interalia as under:

The present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and it is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The issues raised in the complaint is purely relates to the criminal nature. The Managing Director of Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd who has been arrayed as 1^st OP in the complaint without any just and sufficient reasons and it is not the proper or necessary party to the present complaint. No statements, contentions and allegations are made against the 1^st OP in relation to alleged transaction referred and/or reliefs sought by the complainant in the complaint.

The OPs submitted that, Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd is a body corporate having a separate independent juridical entity and is capable of suing and being sued in its own name. As such, there is no occasion whatsoever for its Managing Director to be impleaded in the present case.

The OP further submitted that, the complainant has unlawfully with malafide intentions and ulterior motive has arrayed the Managing Director, Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd in the above complaint. Therefore the existing party i.e. Managing Director, Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd be removed and substituted with correct entity. The necessary changes shall be made in the clause title of the complaint.

The OPs further submitted that, without prejudice, the OP-Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd is completely unaware of the alleged transactions made by the complainant and it is her husband for installation of mobile tower. The allegations made in the complaint are based on imagination, surmise and conjectures. The complaint does not disclose any facts and /or material to show that, the OPs have approached to the complainant and received monies from the complainant for installation of its mobile tower at her premises. The complaint lacks any substantial cause and is filed in an irresponsible and casual manner. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under CP Act. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected.

The OPs further submitted that, absolutely there is no involvement of the OPs in this case. In fact, the OPs name and logo are being misused to cheat the general public. Hence, this forum does not have jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and requested to dismiss the complaint with direction to the complainant to file a police complaint before the concerned police authorities against the fraudsters.

The OPs further submitted that, the averments made in the complaint against the OPs which is not at all connected to the OPs. The OPs are cognizant with such tower related frauds being committed and have been taken various measures by filing the complaint before cybercrime police and blocked various fraudulent websites. The OPs have been issued/issuing public notices to warn and create awareness to general public of such frauds and has placed an advisory for the public on its website www.jio.com. Copy of one of such public notice published on 27^th December 2016 both in Kannada and English in Vijaya Karnataka and Deccan Herald to educate the general public against the fraudulent approach of fraudsters.

The OPs further submitted that, the OPs acquires all sites for mobile towers directly and without demanding any money from interested persons, in any form and it does not solicit any customers via nay website, agencies, contractors and partners in any manner whatsoever for acquiring sites for mobile towers, including any requirement of prior payment of any monies, as such the OPs are not liable for any transactions made or monies given by the public on the basis of offers on websites or persons not being duly authorised officials of the OP. The complainant has not come before the forum with clean hands and suppressed vital and important facts related to the present matter.  The averments made in the complaint para no.2 to 6 are hereby denied in toto as false, frivolous and baseless and the complainant is put to the strict proof of the same. Hence, the OPs pray to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

4. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant and the OPs have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version.  Both parties have produced documents. We have heard the arguments and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides scrupulously. 

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1.      Whether the present complaint is maintainable before this forum?

2.      Whether the complainant has proved there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

3.      What order?

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:          In the Negative

Point No.2:          Does not arise

Point No.3:          As per order below

REASONS

7. The contention of the complainant is that, the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.66,500=00 to the OP company for installation of Jio tower, but till today, the OPs have not installed the Jio tower in the complainant’s land/site. Hence, the complainant has sought for refund the amount of Rs.66,500=00 paid to the OPs. To substantiate the above said facts, the complainant has produced an agreement copy and bank transactions copy  

8. On perusal of the agreement copy/Ex-C1 produced by the complainant, wherein it is seen that, the Jio emblem and top of it Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited and email address has mentioned. But on perusal of the entire agreement copy, the address of the OPs and seal and signature of the OPs has not mentioned in the said agreement copy.   

9. Further, the OPs have disputed all documents produced by the complainant stating that, the transactions ID is not belongs  to the OP No.1 and 2 Company and SB accounts is not belongs to the OP No.1 and 2 Company and alleged mobile numbers is also not belongs to the OP No.1 and 2 Company. Further, the OPs have also produced FIR copy and news paper publication in Kannada and English stating that, the public at large is hereby informed that M/s. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited has not authorized any company/agency/individual to collect or ask for money or to enter into an agreement with any person/ individual for installation of tower/mobile site/pole antennae in the state of Karnataka”  

10. On making careful scrutiny of the case of complainant and on the back ground of oral and documentary evidence of complainant as mentioned above,  we hold that, the present complaint is lack of jurisdiction to entertain the complaint before the forum and the complaint is involves disputed questions of facts. Hence, we come to conclusion that, the present complaint is not maintainable before the forum and the complainant have to approach the appropriate authority for her grievances. Accordingly we answer the point no.1 in the negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 31^st day of December 2018).

MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT