KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

           VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.84/2006

JUDGMENT DATED 25/11/2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                                --  MEMBER

1.      The Reliance Industries Ltd,

Maker Chanbers IV,

222, Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400 021.

2.      The Reliance Infocom

(Reliance Industries Ltd.)                         --  APPELLANTS

A & P Arcade, Near Manorama Jn,

S.A.Road, Kadavanthra

Kochi.

  (By Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil)

          Vs.

Mr.P.A.Abdul Mubaraque,

Palakkaparambil House,

XVII/427, N.H.Byepass.                                     --  RESPONDENT

Alwaye – 683 101.

   (By Adv.K.Y.Tomy)

JUDGMENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER

                    This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.779/03 dated 4.11.04.  Appellants are the opposite parties prefers this appeal under the direction of the forum below to the opposite parties to refund the remitted amount as per receipts, to the complainants and surrendering the handset to the opposite party and to pay Rs.750/- as costs of the proceedings.  The respondent is the complainant in the OP respectively.

                    2. In short the complainant booked a WLL phone connection in February 2003 and his telephone connection was given in April 2003 for availing  the  connection as per the pioneer offer of opposite parties/complainant as paid Rs.21,000/-.  The complainant could not use the telephone in his house because of the poor coverage/reception.  The complainant has made complaint with opposite parties.  But no action was taken by opposite parties.  Opposite parties assured that installation of new tower at Ambattukavu, Aluva would improve coverage but in spite of the installation of the tower in July 2003, there was no improvement in the coverage.  Hence the complainant wanted refund of Rs.21,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

                    3. The opposite party appeared and contended that the complainant paid Rs.21,000/- and purchased the above said mobile set.  As per the aforesaid scheme the complainant has to pay Rs.3000/- towards one time club membership charges.  It is very clearly stated in the brochure   DAPO that if complainant is to exist from the scheme, he will not get Rs.3000/-  which was collected towards the club membership charges.  By accepting this specific offer  that the complainant has purchased the mobile phone under the DAPO  scheme.  Therefore, it is clear that once a customer joins the above scheme, if he wants to exist from the scheme, he will not get Rs.3000/-, the club membership charges.  Hence there is no deficiency in service of opposite parties.  The complainant has never made any complaint regarding poor coverage/reception.  Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                    4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and marked documents Ext.A1 to A3.  On the side of   opposite parties Ext.B1 was marked.  On the basis of the aforesaid pleading and evidence, the forum below found that there is deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties and allowed the complaint.   

                    5. On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing, the counsel for the appellant is present and there is no representation for the respondent/complainant.  The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there was availability of signal in the premises of the complainant and such a signal is sufficient for the activation of the WLL system and as per Dheerubhai Ambani Pioneer Officer (DAPO).  There is no question of refund of Rs.3000/-  towards one time club membership charges.  Advocate commission was taken for examining whether the signal is having at the premises of the complainant or not?  His report was marked and he was  examined as a witness.    It is an accepted fact that WLL telephone device is possible to bring one place to another place within a prescribed limit of area.  The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that there is no question of refund of Rs.3000/- as a life club membership charge, is not acceptable.  There was no such a club and facilities offered to any one of the subscribers of the above scheme by the opposite parties and at present the WLL phones are not existing.  Anyway we are not seeing that the  order passed by the Forum below is strictly on account of the law and evidence and the spirit   of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.          In the circumstances, we are not seeing in the impugned order passed by the forum below. 

                    In the result, the appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below.  Both parties are directed to suffer   their own dhasti.  The points of the appeal answered one by one accordingly.

 M.K.ABDULLA SONA --  MEMBER

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU  --  PRESIDENT