<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.05.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 14th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1192/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Rohit Kumar Tulsiyan,# 311, Mahaveer Marvel Apartment,Kodichikenhalli,Banerghatta Road,Bangalore – 560 076.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Reliance Communications Ltd., Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,Navi Mumbai – 400709,INDIA.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 compensate the complainant with regard to web world charges, amount wrongly debited, late payment fees, mobile rentals and for such other relief’s 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 has got a mobile bearing No.9341891471. He availed the services of the OP for the month of April, May and June 2006 he got the correct bills but from June 2006 on words the billing pattern of the OP was wrong. In the month of July 2008 OP charged web world charges without the notice and without the consent of the complainant. He immediately contacted the OP to delete the said charges, but it went in vain. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Though complainant is regular in making payment of the bill raised by the OP but still OP imposed late payment charges and in the month of April 2008 he got the bill in which his previous payment is shown as Rs.85/- instead of actual payment of Rs.313/-. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP he even requested OP to stop the service. There was no proper response. There is a lot manipulation in the accounts maintained by the OP with regard to the use of their service by the complainant. Though complainant requested OP to correct the mistake and reverse the fault transaction it went in futile. Though complainant is regular in making payment, OP disconnected the out going calls from his mobile it has caused him both mental agony and financial loss. Due to want of the said mobile facility his wife who was pregnant was unable to contact in time that too when she was in need of immediate medical assistance. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to rectify their mistake and reactivate the connection went in vain. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between them on 14.04.2006. Complainant alleging the charges about April 2008 to July 2008 which is basically wrong. Complainant availed the R-World facility under scheme in the month of April 2006 which was in force only for 90 days. After lapse of 90 days if the customer is interested to avail the facility he has to pay the charges. Complainant availed the free facility for 90 days thereafter also kept quiet till up to November 2006. That is the reason why OP imposed R-World rentals of Rs.25/- per month as contemplated. So there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. At the request of the complainant OP has immediately deactivated the services. The charges levied by the OP are correct they are as per the use and utilization of their service. Though complainant is aware of wrong credit of amount dated 07.03.2007 in his favour he kept mum. After detecting the said mistake OP reversed the same on 17.04.2008. That act of the OP again does not amount to deficiency in service. Complainant is a defaulter, not made the payment in time. That is why late fee charges are imposed as per the terms of the agreement. As per the bill dated 22.04.2008 complainant was liable to pay Rs.413-71 on or before 10.05.2008 but complainant failed to make payment of the said charges in time. When complainant become the defaulter OP without finding any other way has to bar the out going calls. The other allegations of the complainant are baseless. Disconnection of the out going calls is mainly because of the default on the part of the complainant. Under such circumstances OP is not liable to pay any compensation as prayed. 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 /> 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. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the services of the OP with regard to his mobile No.9341891471. As admitted by the complainant himself he use to get proper bills for the months of April, May and June 2006. But his grievance is that in the month of July 2006 OP started charging web world charges without his notice and consent. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that complainant availed the said R-World facility under the scheme floated by the OP in the month of April 2006. The said scheme provided from usage of R-World facility for 90 days upon activation. <br /> <br /> 7. The fact that complainant enjoyed the said facility for 90 days from the date of activation is not at dispute and even after the expiry of 90 days complainant did use the said connectivity up to November 2006. If the complainant is not interested to avail the said facility after expiry of the free service of 90 days he would have immediately intimated the OP to disconnect the said connection but he has not opted for the same right up to November 2006 he kept mum. That is why OP imposed the rentals of Rs.25/- per month. That act of the OP can’t be termed as deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. It is always said he who seeks equity must do equity must come with clean hands. But here the approach of the complainant rather does not appear to be as bonafide and reasonable. Complainant got confused about the real dispute, though the dispute aroused with regard to service and transaction of year 2006 he repeatedly states that it is in 2008. On the receipt of the communication from the complainant OP deactivated the said service. In our considered view there is a substantial proof that the charges levied by the OP is as per the usage. The another strange thing is that though complainant is aware of the wrong credit of certain amount to his account he kept mum for good number of days. OP after coming to know of the wrong credit reversed the said amount on 17.04.2008. <br /> <br /> 9. As per the contention of the OP complainant is required to pay the usage charges in pursuance of the bill dated 22.02.2007 of Rs.290/- on or before 10.03.2007 but he made payment on 13.03.2007 that is after due date. Under the circumstances OP imposed the late fee charges. That act of the OP again can’t be termed as deficiency in service. It is specifically contended by the OP that several times they reminded the complainant to make payment of the amount in due. When complainant failed to respond his mobile outgoing calls were cut on 16.05.08. It is also stated by the OP that as per the bill dated 22.04.2008 complainant is still in due of Rs.413-71. This fact is not disputed by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 10. Though he was required to pay the said amount in time that is by 10.05.2008 complainant failed to make payment of the same in time. Under such circumstances OP barred the out going calls. So having considered all these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that OP has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract entered into between themselves and the complainant. We have closely assessed both oral and documentary evidence we are of the view that the R-World charges levied by the OP are as per the terms and conditions of the said contract.<br /> <br /> 11. There is no proof of manipulation of the account or non maintenance of the proper account. During course of the transaction a wrong credit that was given it was then reversed. When complainant used the said R-World service even after expiry of 90 days OP has got a right to collect the rentals till the deactivation. There is a proof that complainant become the defaulter in non payment of the legitimate bill raised by the OP. Viewed from any angle the allegations of the complainant appears to be baseless. Complaint is devoid of merits. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. 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 14th day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />