Per:- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA
JUDGMENT
The Opposite Party is a telecom operator, providing telecom/ air-time services to its subscribers. The Complainant was provided with cell-phone services by the Opposite Party, under Mobile No.9323737540.
[2] It is the case of the Complainant that initially, the handset was working properly, but later on, it developed a snag to the effect that it could not be operated on vibration mode. The Complainant tried to get the handset repaired from the service centre at LG Camp, Andheri (West); but that service centre demanded Rs.5,000/-, which the Complainant turned down. Thus, the handset has developed a snag and thus, it is not working properly.
[3] Next, it is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party raised a demand bill for the period 11/3/2007 to 10/4/2007 for sum of Rs.570/- and due date of payment was 2/5/2007. However, before the expiry of due date i.e. 2/5/2007, the Opposite Party disconnected the mobile operation. Not only that but thereafter also, the Opposite Party continued to raise inflated demand bills. Thus, according to the Complainant, the Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency in service vis-à-vis providing services to the Complainant under cell-phone No.9323737540. The Complainant has claimed compensation in sum of Rs.15,000/- from the Opposite Party besides refund of deposit & registration fees.
[4] The Opposite Party contested the complaint by filing its written version and took stand that the handset was purchased by the Complainant on 13/9/2003 and after uninterrupted usage of more than 36 months, the Complainant started expressing grievance that the handset has developed a technical snag and could not be repaired. The Opposite Party thus, denied allegations of deficiency in service on its part vis-à-vis defect in the handset.
[5] As far as grievance of the Complainant as regards demand bill is concerned, the Opposite Party took stand that the demand bill for sum of Rs.570/- for the period 11/3/2007 to 10/4/2007 was raised and due date of payment was 30/4/2007. The Complainant failed to pay the said bill till 2/5/2007, and therefore, services were barred. Thus, the Opposite Party justified its action in disconnecting mobile facility to the Complainant.
[6] The Complainant filed affidavit of evidence as well as copy of the e-mail dtd.2/5/2007, sent to the Opposite Party. The Complainant also filed her rejoinder to the written version filed by the Opposite Party. She also filed certified copy of the judgment & order passed by this Forum in Consumer Complaint No.55/2007 (In the matters of Mr. Vinod Chandra Brahmbhatt (Husband of the present Complainant) V/s. M/s. Reliance Communications Ltd.) in respect of landline telephone services. According to the Complainant, that complaint was allowed and the Opposite Party is nursing a grievance and that resulted into vindictive attitude.
[7] After the pleadings were over, the Complainant filed demand bill together with a cheque dtd.1/5/2007 for sum of Rs.570/-, which was issued in the name of the Opposite Party.
[8] We have heard the oral submissions of both the sides.
[9] We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:-
Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings |
1. | Whether the Complainant has proved that the Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency in service on any of the counts? | NO |
2. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to recover compensation from the Opposite Party? | NO |
3. | What order? | The complaint stands dismissed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
[10] The complaint is conspicuously silent regarding purchase bill of the handset or date of purchase of the same. However, in the written version as filed, the Opposite Party has come out with a specific statement that the handset was purchased by the Complainant on 13/9/2003. According to the Complainant, handset developed a snag in the month of July-2006 and it was not working on vibration mode. The Complainant has not produced on the record a copy of the invoice or letter of warranty to show that the period of warranty was for three years and the alleged snag with the handset had developed within the period of warranty and the Opposite Party is liable to repair the same. In fact, the statement of the Complainant that the handset could not be operated on vibration mode has not been supported by any certificate or test report issued by any service centre or operator. The Complainant referred to LG Camp, Andheri (West); where she had allegedly taken the handset for repairs in the month of June-2006, but there is no certificate or letter issued by that service centre to the effect that the handset had developed snag or it was not working on vibration mode. Thus, the statement made by the Complainant vis-à-vis snag/defect with the handset is not substantiated by any evidence.
[11] Turning to the next grievance expressed by the Complainant in her complaint, according to the Complainant, the Opposite Party had raised a demand bill for the period 11/3/2007 to 10/4/2007 for sum of Rs.570/- and due date of payment was 2/5/2007. The Opposite Party, in its written version, alleged that the last date of payment was 30/4/2007. However, the original bill produced by the Complainant alongwith a list shows that the due date for payment was 2/5/2007.
[12] It is the case of the Complainant that on 2/5/2007, the Opposite Party disconnected the mobile services and thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. As against this, it is averred by the Opposite Party, in the written version, that the Complainant failed to pay the demand bill till 2/5/2007 and the services were barred.
[13] The Complainant has produced on the record original demand bill alongwith a cheque dtd.1/5/2007 for sum of Rs.570/- drawn in the name of the Opposite Party. This cheque was produced on 22/3/2010 i.e. at the time of hearing of oral arguments and after the pleadings & evidence was over. Alongwith the cheque, the payment slip was also produced to show that this cheque was put in the drop-in box annexed to the payment slip. This attempt was obviously made to show that the Complainant had made a payment of the demand bill on 1/5/2007 by tendering a cheque. There are number of discrepancies with this piece of evidence. If, this cheque for sum of Rs.570/- dtd.1/5/2007 was put in drop-in box alongwith the payment slip then, how come that the Complainant came into possession of original slip as well as the original cheque. No explanation is offered to that effect. It is not the case of the Complainant that this cheque alongwith the payment slip was returned by the Opposite Party to the Complainant after filing of this complaint and the cheque was not accepted by the Opposite Party. In that case, there could have been a covering letter annexed to this cheque. There are no pleadings or no statement in the affidavit to that effect. Above all, in the entire complaint, there is no submission to the effect that the Complainant had made payment of the bill amount in sum of Rs.570/- vide a cheque dtd.1/5/2007 drawn in the name of the Opposite Party and put in the drop-in box annexed to the payment slip. Had it been so, certainly there would have been submission to that effect in the complaint. In absence of such averments, it is difficult to gulp that this cheque was put in by the Complainant in drop-in box on 1/5/2007 and the Opposite Party returned the same, and therefore, this piece of evidence does not establish that the Complainant had made a payment of demand bill. In fact, the Complainant has not made out a case of payment of bill before the due date.
[14] From the above stated facts it is thus, seen that the Complainant failed to make the payment of the demand bill on 1/5/2007 and the services were disconnected on 2/5/2007. Thus, the Complainant has failed to prove that despite payment of the demand bill, the Opposite Party disconnected the mobile facility or the Opposite Party disconnected the same before the due date. In absence of such evidence, it is not possible to record finding that the Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency in service.
[15] No doubt, the Complainant has established the fact that Consumer Complaint No.55/2007 was filed before this Forum by her husband as against the same Opposite Party in respect of deficiency in service on account of landline telephone but that is an altogether different matter and it has no bearing what-so-ever on the present complaint, and therefore, we hold that the Complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the party of the Opposite Party on any of the counts. As a corollary of this, we hold that the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
With this, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
The complaint stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
