THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C. 127/2004
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2016
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Joseph Mathew, Member:
This is a remanded case.
The case of the petitioner in short is that, he had availed the service of the opposite parties for starting an Internet Cafe for his livelihood as a means of self employment. Opposite parties No. 1 &2 have given him DSL connection on 02/10/2003 under account No. 55469 after collecting Rs.13,050/- as installation charge and Rs.5,935/- as refundable advance deposit. The petitioner submitted that the service was disrupted many times and so he was unable to continue his works smoothly. Even after repeated requests the opposite parties didn’t rectify the defects promptly and due to that he sustained heavy monetary loss. Though the opposite parties agreed to compensate the loss against the monthly bills, they didn’t do so.
On 31/03/2004, the opposite parties served a bill for the usual amount without giving any credit as compensation and hence he didn’t pay the amount. Thereupon the opposite parties disconnected his connection and he was forced to take another connection from Asianet. The petitioner alleged that the said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and that caused much hardships, mental pain and also financial loss to him. Hence this petition is filed claiming compensation.
The opposite parties in their version contended that they have given the connection to the petitioner under a particular scheme “S-0064-006T-D-Plan ID503”. Under this plan the customer have to pay a registration charge of Rs.6,995/- and 8% service charge and a deferred installation charge of Rs.30,000/- payable in 60 monthly installments of Rs.500/- each. The petitioner paid the registration charge of Rs.13,050/- along with service tax and security deposit. It was submitted that service is provided to the entire customer through cable. As a precaution against disruptions of cable lines, they have provided all their customers with a “dial up back up” facility to ensure uninterrupted connectivity. The petitioner owes to them a total sum of Rs.33,306.80 as on 24/04/2004. The complaints reported to them were cured at the earliest without affecting the user facility. Apart from giving alternative dial up back up facility they have also given a rebate of Rs.354/- for the periods of disruption. The petitioner is bound to pay the entire dues to them. There is no deficiency in service on their side as alleged. This petition is filed to avoid payment of due amount to them. He is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for and hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
Evidence consists of Ext. A1 to A8, B1 to B5, deposition of PW1 and RW1.
Considering all the facts stated and after thoroughly evaluating all the evidence adduced by both the parties, this petition was dismissed by this Forum in its order dated 29/09/2009 with the finding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the petitioner.
The petitioner moved an appeal against the impugned order of this Fora before the Hob’ble State Commission as appeal No. 702/2009. As per the judgement in the said appeal this case was remanded back to this Fora for impleading Baby Joseph, Manager (Legal), TATA Teleservices Ltd., SL Plaza, Palarivattom, Kochi 682 025 as the supplementary 4th respondent in the original petition.
In that judgement it is ordered to give one more chance to the appellant to agitate this matter before this Forum by impleading the 4th additional respondent as a party to this petition. It is also ordered that both the parties have the right to adduce any oral or documentary evidence before this Forum and ordered to dispose the petition accordingly.
As per the order of the Hon’ble State Commission the additional 4th respondent was impleaded on 20/05/2013. Even after paper publication the additional 4th respondent didn’t appear or filed any version. Hence they were set ex-parte. The notice issued to the other opposite parties No. 1 to 3 returned with endorsement ‘left’.
When the case was taken for evidence no additional evidence either orally or documentary was adduced by any of the parties to the petition. In the absence of evidence to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the additional 4th opposite party, we are of the view that there is nothing on record which necessitates reconsideration of the order already passed by this Forum on merits in OP No. 127/2004 dated 29/09/2009.
In the result this petition is disposed of confirming the order passed by this Forum in OP No. 127/2004 dated 29/09/2009.
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2016
Date of filing: 22/02/2004
SD/-MEMBER SD-/PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Photocopy of bill of DSL dt. 31/03/
A2. Day wise Tariff details from VSNL web site
A3. E-mail sent to the opposite party
A4. Statement of accounts of Federal Bank from 01/01/98 to 28/11/2003
A5. Computer printout of call details of 9895295623 produced by Airtel
A6. Log sheet of Asianet Data Line for the days 30/05/2004, 02/06/04, 19/07/2004 and 26/08/04
A7. User time details of Asianet connection 7 pages
A8. Data Indicom Broad bank bill series
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1. Bill dated 28/10/2003
B2. Application form submitted by the complainant dt. 18/09/2003
B3. Dishent Internet Application form
B4. Statement of Account of DSL
B5. Call follow up
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. P. Prajithlal (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1. K. Anirudh, Krishna, No.50/193-D, Pandaraparambil, Ponevazhi New Cross Road,
Ponekara, Elamakkara P.O., Kochi 682 026
Sd/- President.
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
