<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 11th MARCH 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2814/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Raman Subba Rao,S/o M.H.Ramaswamy,Age 46 years,Managing Director,Canarys Automations Pvt Ltd.No.135, 7th Main, 4th Block, Jayanagar,Bangalore – 560 011.Advocate – Sri.GanapathiV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Reliance Infocomm Services,Reliance House,N.H-4, 8th Mile,Hesaraghatta Cross,Bangalore – 560 057. By Branch Manager.Advocate – Sri.Shankar S.Bhat<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.18,600/- with interest and so also the compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant opted to purchase a new colour handset with post paid mobile connection from OP for a total cost of Rs.39,000/-, he paid the same on 05.02.2003. But thereafter OP failed to deliver the handset within a reasonable time. On the other hand they expressed their inability and refunded only Rs.15,000/- promising him to return remaining amount of Rs.24,000/- within a short period. OP delivered ordinary mobile handset to the complainant with new pre paid connection to his mobile No.93412 31953. Thereafter returned only Rs.5,400/- in December 2006 as against balance of Rs.24,000/-. Though complainant made repeated requests and demands to OP to refund the remaining amount by addressing several e-mails, letters and personal visit it went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. OP arbitrarily deducted Rs.3,000/- as deposit and another Rs.9,000/- for usage of the said phone for 18 months and Rs.3,600/- as club membership. Complainant never consented for the same. Under the circumstances complainant felt deficiency in service. Accordingly he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs. <br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within his knowledge. OP never promised the complainant to deliver the colour handset as contended. On the other hand complainant has obtained the connection under certain scheme in the month of February 2003 and migrated to pre paid on 26.06.2004. With all that this complaint is filed after lapse of four years. Hence complaint is barred by time. It is further contended that complainant was the subscriber for plan PCN 1. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement OP collected the charges. They alleged DAPO scheme was introduced by the OP which has got certain provisions with regard to the payment of the tariff. Complainant has opted for services through DAE accordingly OP collected the charges. The other allegations are baseless. As per the contract and tariff opted by the complainant he was eligible for refund of only Rs.5,400/- after deducting the other charges. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Claim is highly imaginary. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. Though it is much contended by the complainant that OP promised to provide him new colour handset with post paid connection and collected Rs.39,000/- in February 2003, for this contention basically there is no proof. On the other hand OP has specifically stated that the complainant paid Rs.39,000/- under certain scheme then got the connection migrated to pre paid on 26.06.2004. Of course complainant has not disputed the migration. Further complainant says that when OP failed to deliver the handset, it refunded and returned only Rs.15,000/- and out of Rs.24,000/- another Rs.5,400/- were returned in December 2006 rest of the amount is not returned in spite of his repeated requests and demands. Hence he felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. According to the OP, complainant was a subscriber of plan PCN 1 and he is bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. DAPO scheme introduced by the OP covers PCN 1, customer were to pay Rs.21,000/- as upfront payment for entire three years i.e., Rs.3,000/- as connection charges which is not refundable and one time club membership and Rs.500 X 36 months for the said period. Break up Rs.500/- per month included Rs.240/- as rent and Rs.160/- as usage for 400 minutes and Rs.100/- privilege charges. Complainant having understood all these terms and conditions and payments opted for the said plan. When that is so, complainant is bound by the contract, now he can’t simply says that he has paid Rs.39,000/- as OP promised him to give new handset. On the other hand OP is able to substantiate that complainant opted for PCN 1 scheme and he is bound by the terms and conditions.<br /> <br /> 8. What made the complainant to wait for all these years though he changed his plan and migrated pre paid connection in June 2004 is not known. Suddenly after lapse of 4 years or so he has come up with this complaint. OP after calculating the necessary charges to be paid by the complainant refunded Rs.5,400/-. That act of the OP can’t be termed as deficiency in service. In our view claim of the complainant appears to be baseless. It is specifically stated by the OP that the scheme and plan which complainant has opted stood closed in the year 2006 itself after the expiry of 3 years. With all that now the complainant has come up with this complaint in the year 2008. Closure of the said scheme and plan is not disputed by the complainant. Viewed from any angle complaint appears to be devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 11th day of March 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />