CC Filed on 01.09.2010
Disposed on 02.09.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 02nd day of September 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA, Member.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 166/2010
Between:
Sri. S. Subramanyam, Ex-counciller, No. C-74, Agrahara, Near Railway Station, Chintamani – 563125. | ….Complainant |
V/S M/s. Reliance Communications Ltd., H-Block, I Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai – 400 709. (By Advocate Sri. N. Ramachandraiah) | ….Opposite Party |
ORDER
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the Opposite Party to take back the instrument and refund the bill amount with compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant contends that he has purchased a Reliance wireless telephone instrument on 30.06.2006 from the authorized dealer of the Opposite Party. On 30.06.2010 the Opposite Party has disconnected the services without giving any prior notice. The complainant has a pre-paid talk time currency to the tune of Rs.200/- in his account. When the instrument was disconnected by the Opposite Party the complainant sent a letter dated 01.07.2010 requesting them to reconnect telephone services immediately or take back the instrument by refund of the bill amount, but so far the Opposite Party has not responded. Hence it is contended that disconnection of the service by the Opposite Party without giving prior notice is a breach of contract and it amounts to violation of the rights of the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed.
2. The OP has filed version and contended that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009 AIR SCW 5631, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further stated that the parties are governed by contract and the Opposite Party has not violated any of the terms of the contract. The complainant has been charged as per the tariff plan opted by him and there is no abnormal telephone charges. The service provided to the complainant was disconnected for the reason that validity of the plan opted by him expired on 29.06.2010. Hence it was incumbent upon the complainant to get the same recharged with new validity plan as per his requirements, as per the terms and conditions agreed upon. The complainant has suppressed these material facts as to what plan he opted for. Even before the expiry of the validity, by interactive voice response and messages have been sent to the complainant intimating that the validity of the plan opted by him is reaching expiry and requested him to recharge the connection with new validity voucher, but he was getting the same recharged only with top up vouchers with currency and without validity. Accordingly, the services were barred online by automated system generated activity, for which no human factor is involved. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved the alleged
deficiency in service by the OP?
Point No.2: To what order?
4. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
1. Negative
2. As per final order.
R E A S O N S
5. POINT NO.1: In our opinion the complainant has failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service for the following reasons. The complainant does not specifically say what was the reason for which it was disconnected, except stating that it was disconnected without notice. On the other hand it is the contention of the Opposite Party that the services got disconnected as the complainant was required to choose the proper plan. It is stated that the validity of the plan, which was chosen by the complainant expired on 29.06.2010 and he was required to recharge with new validity plan and that was also informed by giving necessary messages and inspite of it, the complainant did not do so and because of it automatically service gets disconnected. This reason given by the Opposite Party goes to show that the connection given to the complainant was not disconnected permanently and only thing is that there was some technical reason such as recharging the plan. Hence atleast after knowing the reason for having disconnected, the complainant could have approached the Opposite Party and recharged with new validity scheme so that his service could have been continued. Hence we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service and it was open to the complainant to get the service connected by following the procedure of the Opposite Party and when he has failed to do so, that itself does not amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this point is held against the complainant.
6. POINT NO.2: In view of the finding on point No.1, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 02nd day of September 2011.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
