BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 122/2005 Filed on 18.04.2005
Dated : 30.10.2010
Complainant:
Dr. S. Mahesh Kumar, 115, Souparnika, Chayakudy Lane, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram-24.
(By adv. Vinoj Rajan)
Opposite parties :
M/s Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai-400 709.
Managing Director, Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai-400 709.
Commercial Service Centre, Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Chittarahayam Lavania, 26/322 (3 & 4), Hindu Mission Road, Behind S.M.S.M Institute, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-1.
This O.P having been taken as heard on 31.08.2010, the Forum on 30.10.2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a subscriber of mobile phone connection of the opposite parties vide No. 9387831632 (old No. 0471-3131632), that complainant was regularly and promptly paying all the dues for the service as and when billed, that on 06.10.2004 a bill for Rs. 2,633/- was served by opposite party and same was promptly paid by him, that thereafter a bill dated 06.12.2004 for an amount of Rs. 6,722/- for the period 06.11.2004 to 05.12.2004 including previous dues amounting to Rs. 4,465/- was served by opposite parties. It is submitted by the complainant that the amount of Rs. 4,465/- claimed by opposite parties was excessive, false and unreasonable as the complainant had paid all the bills that was served on him, that thereafter opposite parties issued a bill dated 06.11.2004 for Rs. 4,466/- without any details of the calls made to him. Collection agent of the opposite parties refused to give a detailed bill dated 06.11.2004. Hence complainant refused to pay the said amount and demanded a detailed bill. Thereafter some anti-social elements of the opposite party claiming to be attached to the Thiruvananthapuram office came to complainant's residence and demanded payment, that complainant took a firm stand that the bill would be cleared only after obtaining the call details and payment will be made directly to the opposite party so as to obtain proof of payment, that opposite party provided an option to pay bill through their web site via the internet. Complainant paid the bill amount of Rs. 6,722/- demanded in bill dated 06.12.2004 using his HSBC Credit Card even though the charges shown therein was exorbitant, that complainant remitted the entire amount, but opposite party terminated the service to the telephone connection without any notice. When he contacted the opposite parties, he was advised to contact the nearest web world for reconnection. In the meantime, the next bill dated 06.01.2005 was issued to the complainant showing that an amount of Rs. 6,722/- was made by the complainant. After a couple of days opposite parties again terminated the service to the complainant's telephone alleging that Rs. 6,722/- for the period from 06.11.2004 to 05.12.2004 was not paid. On enquiry the credit card company confirmed that the amount had been transferred to the opposite party on 29.12.2004 itself. Thereafter opposite parties' agent called on the complainant at his residence and demanded the amount on 14.02.2005, when complainant tried to explain the facts, he was profusely abused and assaulted verbally. Complainant caused to send lawyer's notice on 16.02.2005 to opposite party demanding that full service to the telephone connection be reinstated and demanding an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards damages. Though opposite parties accepted the notice, no reply was sent by opposite parties.
Opposite parties filed version contending that complaint itself is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the averment that a bill dated 06.12.2004 was received after the bill dated 06.10.2004 is not correct, that bill dated 06.11.2004 for Rs. 4,466.18 was also served on the complainant. As the said bill amount was not paid, the said amount was added to the bill dated 06.12.2004. There was no discrepancy in any of the bills served on the complainant, that opposite parties had never deputed any anti-social elements to collect amount from the complainant, that the complainant himself opted to pay the bill through web site. The bill amount of Rs. 6,722/- was paid by the complainant using his HSBC Credit Card on 29.12.2004. 1st opposite party on 05.01.2005 found out the same as rejected and the matter was informed to Thiruvananthapuram office. 3 months bills were not paid. Hence disconnection was effected. Thereafter complainant approached the opposite parties and on a good will reconnection was effected. Complainant has failed to settle the charges and disconnection of telephone for non-payment of dues does not constitute deficiency in service. Complainant has no genuine case. Opposite party is not bound to give compensation to the complainant. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get connection reinstated?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and costs?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has marked Exts. P1 to P15. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed affidavit and Exts. D1 to D5 were marked. Complainant has not been cross examined by opposite parties.
Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, complainant was a subscriber of mobile phone connection vide connection No. 9387831632 of the opposite parties. The point in dispute is that opposite party issued a bill dated 06.12.2004 for an amount of Rs. 6,722/- for the period from 06.11.2004 to 05.12.2004 including the previous dues amounting to Rs. 4,465/-. It has been the case of the complainant that the amount of Rs. 4,465/- shown as dues in bill dated 06.12.2004 was excessive, false and unreasonable as the complainant had paid off all the bill that was served on him. Complainant sought for a detailed bill. Thereafter opposite party issued a bill dated 06.11.2004 for an amount of Rs. 4,466/- without any details of the calls. Even after repeated requests opposite parties refused to give a detailed bill and instead a photocopy of the bill dated 06.11.2004 was sent to him through the collection agent. It has also been the case of the complainant that the collection agent wanted the complainant to pay the amount through him, but complainant refused and demanded a detailed bill. Ext. P1 is the original bill dated 06.10.2004 issued by opposite party to complainant for Rs. 2,632.38. The statement period mentioned therein is 10.09.2004 to 05.10.2004. Complainant paid the same. There is no point in dispute on that aspect. Ext. P2 is the bill dated 06.11.2004 for Rs. 4,466.18. The bill period mentioned in Ext. P2 is 06.10.2004 to 05.11.2004. The very case of the complainant is that the said Ext. P2 was issued without any details regarding the calls made. It is clear from Ext. P1 that the said bill was issued with details regarding the calls made, whereas in Ext. P2 no such call details are seen mentioned. Complainant has the right to know the call details, but opposite party never issued call details in regard to Ext. P2 bill. Ext. P3 is the bill dated 06.12.2004 for bill period 06.11.2004 to 05.12.2004 for Rs. 2,255.98 for which a detailed statement of calls mentioned on the over leaf of Ext. P3. Ext. P4 is the bill issued by Reliance. On perusal of Ext. P4 it is seen that the transaction details for Rs. 6,722/- from the internet is shown on 29.12.2004 and payment is seen made through ICICI Bank. It is pertinent to note that opposite parties in their version stated that the said payment was not received by them. Evidently by Ext. P4, Rs. 6,722/- was paid as per transaction No. 079042 on 29.12.2004. Ext. P5 is the credit card statement issued by HSBC. On perusal of Ext. P5 it is apparent that Rs. 6,722/- was transferred to Reliance Communications, Mumbai on 29.12.2004. But in the version opposite parties stated that the said amount was received only on 06.05.2005 which appears to be a false statement in the light of Exts. P4 & P5. Ext. P6 is the print out from the web site of the credit card company wherein it is mentioned that Rs. 6,722/- has been transferred to Reliance Communications on 29.12.2004. Ext. P7 is the bill dated 06.01.2005 for Rs. 733/-. In Ext. P7 also there is a mention of payment of Rs. 6,722/- and total amount due comes to Rs. 733/- from which it is clear that opposite party has received Rs. 6,722/- on 29.12.2004 itself. In Ext. P7 also call details are seen given by opposite parties. But no call details are given in Ext. P2. Ext. P8 is the statement of account issued by Centurion Bank wherein the bill dated 06.01.2005 is seen paid by cheque bearing No. 049827. It is argued by the complainant that though complainant has remitted the amount without obtaining call details with respect to Ext. P2 bill opposite parties terminated the service to his telephone without notice. It has been the contention of the opposite parties that services were terminated due to non-payment of dues. It has been contended by the complainant that on furnishing of proof of payment, services were reinstated for 4 days in January 2005, thereafter the connection was terminated without notice and reason. Ext. P9 is the copy of the advocate notice dated 16.02.2005 demanding reconnection of the telephone service and damages for the loss that complainant has sustained due to illegal termination of his telephone service. Ext. P10 and P11 are postal receipts and acknowledgement cards. Ext. P12 is the notice issued by opposite parties to complainant claiming Rs. 8,937.97. Ext. P13 is the reply to Ext. P12 issued by complainant. Ext. P14 is the acknowledgement card. Ext. P15 is the letter issued by Reliance Company to complainant stating that an amount of Rs. 6,722/- was received on 11.05.2005. Along with affidavit opposite party has produced 5 documents. Ext. D1 is the bill dated 06.10.2004 which is not seen as the copy of Ext. P1, but the amount mentioned therein is one and the same. Ext. D2 is the bill dated 06.11.2004 for Rs. 4,466.18 which is also not seen as the copy of the Ext. P2. Ext. D3 is the bill dated 06.12.2004 for Rs. 2,255.98 which is also not seen as the copy of Ext. P3. Ext. D4 is the bill dated 06.01.2005 for Rs. 733.13 which is also not seen as the copy of Ext. P7. Ext. D5 is the bill dated 06.02.2005 for Rs. 2,241.30. Complainant never furnished such a bill. In Ext. D5 in the payment column it is seen mentioned payment Rs. -6,722, while in Ext. D4 the said amount is seen remitted. In view of the available documents on record and affidavits furnished by both parties, it can be seen that the contention raised by opposite parties regarding the payment of Rs. 4,466/- was on 06.05.2005 has no basis and documents furnished by opposite parties are not tallying with the statement issued by opposite parties by way of bills to the complainant. Evidently by Ext. P4 complainant had remitted Rs. 6,722/- on 29.12.2004 without obtaining the call details from the opposite parties and the same stands supported by Exts. P5 & P6. The reason for disconnection of telephone service by opposite parties is uncertain. It is further to be noted that complainant was the RMO of the Government General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram at that time and the said phone connection was obtained by him to aid his professional service. Due to disconnection of telephone without notice and reason, he and his patients might have met immense sufferings and hardships. Opposite parties failed totally to establish their contention in the version, while complainant has positively adduced evidences in support of the complaint. In view of the above, we find there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which opposite party has to compensate the complainant.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall reinstate the services to the telephone connection of the complainant if complainant requested to do so. Opposite parties shall pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation to the complainant. Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of October 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 122/2005
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - Dr. S. Mahesh Kumar
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Original bill dated 16.10.2004 issued by opposite party to
complainant for Rs. 2,632.38.
P2 - Bill dated 06.11.2004 for Rs. 4,466.18.
P3 - Bill dated 06.12.2004 for Rs. 2,255.98.
P4 - Transaction details for Rs. 6,722/- from the Internet shown on
29.12.2004
P5 - Credit card statement issued by HSBC.
P6 - Print out from the Website of the credit card company.
P7 - Bill dated 06.01.2005 for Rs. 733/- and call details.
P8 - Statement of account issued by Centurion Bank
P9 - Copy of advocate notice dated 16.02.2005
P10 - Postal receipts.
P11 - Acknowledgement card.
P12 - Notice issued by opposite parties to complainant
P13 - Reply letter dated 18.05.2005.
P14 - Acknowledgement card
P15 - Letter issued by Reliance company to complainant
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Bill dated 06.10.2004
D2 - Bill dated 06.11.2004 for Rs. 4,466.18
D3 - Bill dated 06.12.2004 for Rs. 2,255.98
D4 - Bill dated 06.01.2005 for Rs. 733.13.
D5 - Bill dated 06.02.2005 for Rs. 2,241.30
PRESIDENT
jb
