Before the District consumers Forum:Kurnool
Present:Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., member
Thursday the 14th day of August, 2003
C.D.No.43/2002
B.Pavan Kumar,
S/o. B.Madhavudu,
Filed Officer,
Godrej Saralee Limited,
R/o Maram Complex,
38/57, Minchin Bazar,
Kurnool. … Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri.D.Srinivasulu, Advocate.
-Vs-
1. Rama Krishna Electronic,
Franchies of AIR TEL,
Kurnool. … In Person
2. The Manager,
Customer Care,
AIRTEL, My home Tyloon Block-A,
2nd Floor, Kundanabagh,
Begum pet,
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party No.2 represented by his
Counsel Sri.P.Srinivasulu and A.Anil Kumar
O R D E R
This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act seeking a direction on the opposite party not to insist for the payment of Rs.2,140/- tariff excess charged for the month of January, 2002, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation of mental agony, Rs.1,000/- as costs and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the exigencies of the case.
The gist of complaint of the complainant is that the complainant enrolled himself for “All night long” offer with the opposite party 1& 2 for mobile connection bearing No.98491-93950 by paying Rs.150/- as per the offer the calls received or made during 10 P.M to7.A.M are not charged, agreeing to the terms of the offer the complainant duly filled up the package agreement form and submitted to the opposite parties. But to the surprise of the complainant he received a bill for the month of January , 2002 on 30.1.2002, the said bill included charges to calls made during 10 P.M to 7 A.M to the tune of Rs.2000/-.
The said bill was brought to the notice of the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 agreed the mistake committed in the said bill and that they will with draw the said excess bill after contacting opposite party No.2. After a week when the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 they asked the complainant to pay the full bill amount as there appears no mistake in the said bill. The complainant further submits that his mobile has been disconnected on 5.2.2002 without proper reason by the opposite party No.2, then he addressed a letter to opposite party No.2 dt.7.2.2002 with a request to rectify the said excess bill. Because of the said disconnection by the opposite parties the complainant was put to much in convenience. Hence the conduct of the opposite party in charging excess bill made during 10 P.M. to 7 A.M for month of January, 2002 under “All Night Long” offer amounts to deficiency of service to the complainant.
The complainant to his complaint encloses Viz; Fax copy of package agreement form, original statement of Account and letter to the Manager Airtel dt 7.2.2002.
In pursuance of the notice of this Forum as to this case the opposite party No.2 appeared and contested the case by filing its written version (reply) and the opposite party No.1 remained absent to the proceedings of the case. Its written version besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainant’s case deny the complaint allegations requiring their strict proof by the compliant. It further submits that the complainant after accepting the terms and conditions for availing mobile service signed Customer agreement form along with package agreement form and got allotted mobile No.98491 93950 for “Dream Rate Plan” without the “All night long” offer. The complainant in the package agreement form duly struck down the “All night long” offer at the time of applying for the mobile connection. Based on the details furnished by the complainant in the package agreement form the mobile services were activated to the mobile phone of the complainant.
It further submits that the opposite party issued an invoice dt.25.1.2002 for Rs.3,700/- for month January, 2002, instead of making payment of the above said invoice the complainant raised the issue of “All night long “ offer with an intention to avoid payment of the said bill and the said “All Night Long” offer was not availed by the complainant himself.
It further alleges that the due date for payment of the said invoice dt.25.1.2002 was expired on 10.2.2002 and the time was extended till 19.2.2002 to give an opportunity to the complainant to make payment. Inspite of fair opportunity the complainant failed to make payment, has resulted in dis-connection for non-payment on 20.2.2002 and not on 5.2.2002 as alleged by complainant in his complaint. The invoice dt.25.2.2002 of the complainant clearly shows that the complainant utilised the mobile services till 19.2.2002 and now cannot complaint for dis-connection of his mobile services on 5.2.2002. Hence there is no deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to any of reliefs sought in the complaint and seeks for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out his case alleging deficiency of service on the opposite parties:-
The complainant alleges excess bill to his mobile services for the month of January, 2002 as he availed “All Night Long” offer of the opposite parties, the complainant relies on fax copy of package agreement form, which is not original nor it is attested copy and further the complainant except filing the complaint did not adduce any evidence or sworn affidavit of his in support of his complaint averments nor substantiated his complaint averments by getting marked any documents on his side. Further there is no diligent persecution of the mater from complainants side as he continuously made the case un-represented for several dates of hearing without bothering to the substantiating his case. Mere filing of the documents does not amount to proof of the case in the proper manner. On the other side the opposite parties allege that the complainant availed “Dream Rate Plan” and not “All Night long” offer as the complainant himself struck down the offer in the package agreement form, the package agreement form is filed by the complainant along with the complaint. There is no rebuttal from the complainant’s side for the allegations of the opposite parties and no cogent supporting material is filed for the said rebuttal. Hence the complainant is remaining utterly failed in establishing prima facie his case. Hence it appears that the complainant is not having any bonafide interest in the claim also. In the light of the above discussion as the material placed on record by the complainant in substantiating his case is being unworthy of consideration on account of its inherent defects being un-attested documents. The case of the complainant and his entitleness to the reliefs is not remaining made out.
Consequently, the complaint is dismissed and in the circumstances each party to bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to the Dictation, corrected by us, pronounced in the open Court, this the 14th day of August, 2003
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
