Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

111/2013

Anna Malai Ramasamy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Reliance Communications Ltd, Reliance House, - Opp.Party(s)

O.S.Karthikeyan

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

                                                               Complaint presented on  :  24.05.2013

                                                                   Order pronounced on  : 15.06.2015

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II

 

MONDAY  THE 15^th DAY  OF JUNE 2015

 

C.C.NO.111/2013

 

 

Mr.Annamalai Ramaswamy,

New No 21, Old No.8,

Satyanarayana Avenue,

R.A.Puram,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                                ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	M/S Reliance Communications Ltd, Reliance House No, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
	.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                          : 24.05.2013

Counsel for Complainant                              :Mr.O.S.Karthikeyan

Counsel for Opposite party                               :M/S. Shivakumar & Suresh

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLANT IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite party is engaged in various business activities and one among them is Telecommunications Services. The complainant purchased a CDMA mobile connection in the year 2008 by depositing a sum of Rs.3,000/-  towards security  deposit, and he  opted the plan was “DAP01” on a monthly rental of Rs.425/- which is a  post paid connection. The complainant lodged a request for migration from post paid connection to a pre paid connection, since his usage is less. The opposite party staff informed that a sum of Rs.2800/- towards outstanding would automatically be deducted from and out of the security deposit available and the balance would be returned to him by way of demand draft. Even after lapse of 10 days connection remained de-activated. When the complainant contacted the opposite parties, their staff assured him that services would be resumed within 48 hours. On 18.11.2012 his connection was activated and he recharged for a sum of Rs.500/- through on line with “Paytm.com” and this said amount is debited from his bank account and however the same was not recharged in his mobile phone. He visited the opposite party and they did not give proper reply. Further the opposite party sent a post paid bill for a sum of Rs.2,867.52/-(Rupees two thousand eight hundred sixty seven and fifty two paisa only). On receipt of the bill, when the complainant contacted the opposite party and sought for cancellation of his number. However, the opposite party neither made migration as requested by the complainant or cancelled his service till the date and continues to indulge in unfair trade practice. Because such act of the opposite party the complainant was put to pain and suffering. The complainant also issued legal notice. The opposite party failed to take any action and hence the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party and praying various reliefs.

 

 

2.WRITTEN VERSION IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party admits that the complainant due to less usage sought migration from post paid to pre paid connection. The opposite party will not de-activate the number for migration   unless the customer clears the outstanding. From the date of submission of CAF, 7 days calculated and till 7 days he will be in post paid and he needs to clear the outstanding till the date of 7 days. It is  false to state that the connection was activated on 18.11.2012 and the complainant is under the impression that  the migration from post paid to pre paid and recharged his amount with Rs.500/-. The complainant has not recharged from the official website of the opposite party and therefore the opposite party is no way liable to re-payRs.500/-. The opposite party admits that they sent a bill for Rs.2, 865.52 for the usage of customer for the billing period 07.10.2012 to 06.11.2012. The voice call charges for the said period alone is Rs. 2229.50/-. As there is outstanding we are unable to accept the request of termination made by the complainant. The bill is being generated by  automatic mechanism depending upon usage  since the complainant himself has not cleared the outstanding and also not recharged through official website of the opposite party they have not committed any deficiency in service. Further in the terms and conditions of the complainant customer application form mentioned only courts in Mumbai have exclusive jurisdiction to decide all issues arising out of the any dispute and therefore the opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether the opposite party committed Deficiency in service?

           2. To what relief the complainant is entitled?

 

4. POINT:1

            The admitted facts  are that the complainant purchased a  post-paid  CMDA mobile connection in the year 2008 with the opposite party on a monthly rental of Rs.425/- and subsequently he wanted  migration from post-paid connection to a pre-paid connection and his request for migration was registered by the Staff of the Opposite Party in reference No. 190302454.

          5.The Complainant would contend that the Opposite Party staff informed that it would be deactivated after a period of 10 days for such migration and that a sum of Rs.2800/- towards outstanding would be automatically deducted from his security deposit of Rs.3,000/- available and balance would be sent to him by way of demand draft and even after lapse of 10 days his connection was not deactivated then after he contacted the Opposite Party he was informed that his connection would be re-activated within 48 hours  and his connection was activated on 18.11.2012 and thereafter he recharged for a sum of Rs.500/- through on-line ‘Paytm.com’ and though his amount was debited from his bank account not recharged to his mobile phone, then he contacted the Opposite Party and they said  they will look in to the matter and after two ways he received a post paid bill for sum of Rs.2867.52/- and immediately contacted the customer care of the Opposite Party and sought for cancellation of this connection and however till December the Opposite Party continuously sending bills without disconnecting the connection and hence the Complainant issued legal notice and thereafter filed this complainant to cancel the connection and also compensation for the  deficiency in service and unfair trade  practice committed by the Opposite Party.

          6. The Opposite Party would contend that if the request for migration is made from the date of submission of CAF (Customer Application Form) 7 days will be calculated and till 7days he will be in post paid and further the ‘Paytm.com’ is not a official website of the Opposite Party and therefore the opposite party is no way liable to repay the sum of Rs.500/- to the Complainant. The bill sent for a sum of Rs.2865.52/- for the usage period 7.10.2012 to 06.11.2012 and as there is outstanding the Opposite Party unable to accept the request of termination and   sending the demand notices and further the bills are generated through automated mechanism and therefore no fault in the billing system and further as per the terms of condition of the CAF only courts in Mumbai have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue and further there is no  damage caused to the Opposite Party  and hence the Complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

          7. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai held in a common order in FA Nos.623/2010 847/2011, 528/2012 CMP.NO.730/2012 IN F.A.NO.66/2010 AND CCSR.NO.658/2012 dated 29.11.2012 that

“Decisions  rendered by the Apex Court in plethora of precedents confirming the applicability of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, and in view of the availability of various provisions of law and recent enactments, in the field of telecommunication we are of the considered opinion that the persons who avails the service on consideration from service providers of telecommunication are considered to be a Consumer, and they are entitled to approach the Consumer Forum for the Redressal of their grievances, and under such circumstances the view taken by the District Forum, Against the consumers and the order passed thereon are liable to be set aside”.

Keeping the view of the orders of the State Commission, Chennai this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of telecommunication service provider. The opposite party has not filed copy of the customer application. The complainant obtained Mobile connection only from the opposite party. The opposite party conducting business is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore the contention of the opposite party that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is rejected and on the other hand it is held that this Forum has jurisdiction to maintain the complaint.

          8. Undisputedly the mobile no of the Complainant is 9381577758. ExA1 is the post paid bill raised for the period 7.01.2012 to 06.11.2012 for a sum of Rs.2867.52/- Admittedly the Complainant wanted a migration from post paid connection to pre-paid connection and for which he was given reference no.190302454.  According to the Complainant the pre paid connection was activated on 18.11.2012 and he recharged for a sum of Rs.500/- through ‘paytm.com’ which was evidenced by Ex.A2. However the said amount of Rs.500/- did not reach the Complainant mobile. The Complainant wrote Ex.A4 Complaint through mail dated 04.12.2012 and for which ‘paytm.com’ reply under Ex.A5 that they are looking into it.  The ‘paytm.com’ gave Ex.A6 reply dated 05.12.2012 to the Complainant that “We have checked and it shows up as a successful recharge on our system. We suggest you check with Reliance CDMA on the status of your recharge” As per the above reply of ‘Paytm.com’ the  mobile has been migrated to post paid to pre-paid  and that is why the recharge was successful. If the Complainant’s mobile has not been activated into pre-paid service, it would not have accepted a pre paid payment made towards 9381577758. Therefore it is held that on 18.11.2012 the Complainant post paid connection has been migrated to pre-paid connection by the Opposite Party. Even after doing so the Ex.A2 and A7 bills raised by the Opposite Party is an unfair trade practice.

          9.According to the Complainant when he made request for migration the Opposite Party informed him that the outstanding  bill of Rs.2800/- would be automatically deducted from the security deposit of Rs.3000/-. That time Ex.A1 bill for a sum of Rs.2867.52/- is pending. The Opposite Party did not deny the security deposit of Rs.3000/- is with them. Hence they could have very well adjusted Ex.A1 bill in the security deposit amount. Without doing so the Opposite Party was continuously sending bills for payment by the Complainant is nothing but an unfair trade practice.

          10. The Complainant dissatisfied with the service of the Opposite Party that   immediately not effecting migration, he wanted to cancel the connection and even after such a demand they did not disconnect the connection. The Complainant also issued Ex.A14 legal notice the same was duly acknowledged by the Opposite Party and however they did not reply for the same. The Opposite Party refused to return recharge amount of Rs. 500/- to the Complainant and also asking further demands to pay bills and also failed to cancel connection continuously establishes that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service.

11.POINT: 2

          As the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service the reliefs sought by the Complainant in respect of cancellation of connection and demand notices and refund of recharge amount of Rs.500/- is entitled. Apart from that the Complainant is also suffered with mental agony because of the act of the Opposite Party for which also the Complainant is entitled for reasonable compensation with costs of the complaint.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed and ordered that the Mobile Connection No.9381577758 given to the Complainant is cancelled with effect from December 2012 and also ordered withdrawing the demand notices dated 12.02.2013 and 10.03.2013 and further the Opposite Party ordered to pay a sum of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) towards recharge and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only)  towards mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The Opposite Party is directed to pay the above amount within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the above amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 15^th  day of June 2015.

 

MEMBER - II                                                                        PRESIDENT  

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 07.11.2012                   Bill for the period from 07.10.2012 to06.11.2012

Ex.A2 dated 18.11.2012                   Recharge Summary along with confirmation

Ex.A3 dated 07.12.2012                   Bill for the period from 07.11.2012 to 06.12.2012

Ex.A4 dated 04.12.2012                   E-mail from complainant to paytm.com

Ex.A5 dated 04.12.2012                   Reply from Paytm.com

Ex.A6 dated 05.12.2012                   E-mail from paytm.com

Ex.A7 dated 07.01.2013                   Bill for the period from 07.12.2012 to 06.01.2013

Ex.A8 dated 12.02.2013                   Demand Notice made by the opposite party

Ex.A9 dated 18.02.2013                   E-mail from complainant to opposite party

Ex.A10 dated 19.02.2012                 Reply from the opposite party

Ex.A11 dated 07.02.2013                 Bill for the period from 07.01.2013 to 06.02.2013

Ex.A12 dated 07.03.2013                 Bill for the period from 07.02.2013 to 06.03.2013

Ex.A13 dated 10.03.2013       Demand Notice made by the opposite party

Ex.A14 dated 05.04.2013                 Legal Notice along with proof of service

 

MEMBER - II                                                                                                            PRESIDENT