Date of filing: 05.07.2012.
Date of disposal: 28.11.2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President
Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., Member
Wednesday, the 28th day of November, 2012
C.C.No.113 of 2012
Between:
K.I.S. Vijaya Sagar, S/o late K. Issaiah John, D.No.47-1-17A, Lurdhunagar, Gunadala, Vijayawada – 4.
. … Complainant.
And
1. Reliance Communications Limited, Reliance House, 4th Floor, Plot No.38, Phase – II, High Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 081.
2. Reliance Communications Limited, H-Block, 1st Floor, Dheerubai Ambani, Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai – 400 710.
3. The Manager, The Reliance Communications Limited, II Floor, K.K. Towers, Near Benz Circle, Vijayawada – 8.
. … Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 05.07.2012, in the presence of Sri T.C. Columbus, advocate for complainant; Sri K. Seshagiri Rao, advocate for opposite parties 1 to 3 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N.Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. The averments of the complaint are in brief:
The complainant is the subscriber of opposite parties and he was given post paid connection to his mobile under a monthly rental of Rs.199/- in the month of April, 2010. Since then the complainant is paying the bills regularly. He was also charged Rs.60/- per month even though the complainant is not opted the stipulated service while the matter stood thus, the complainant opted for number portability to BSNL and accordingly termination was registered by the opposite parties on 25.1.2010. But the opposite parties did not provide such facility inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant. Then the complainant got issued a legal notice through his advocate on 24.2.2012 demanding the opposite parties to terminate hismobile connection and pay the excess amount collected from him for non-usage of additional services. The 2nd opposite party received the said notice and kept quiet, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to terminate the mobile connection of the complainant immediately, to pay Rs.15,000/- towards damages for deficiency in service and to pay costs.
2. The version of the opposite parties is in brief:
The opposite parties denied all the allegations of the complainant and submitted that the complainant has taken connection and he has due amount to the opposite parties to evade the same he filed this complaint. So far as the termination of the account and transferring account he has not paid the requisite charges as demanded by the opposite parties. The complainant without paying the bill amount has approached the Hon’ble Forum with unclean hands. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. On behalf of the complainant, he gave his affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and on behalf of the opposite parties Sri K. Ravindra Babu, Authorized Signatory of 1st opposite party filed his affidavit and no documents were marked.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
I) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant in terminating his mobile connection and to refund excess amount paid by him? Or not?
II) If so is the complainant entitled for any relief or not?
III) To what relief the complainant is entitled?
Points 1 and 2:
6. On perusing the material on hand, the complainant is the subscriber of the opposite parties tele service and he was given post paid connection in the month of April, 2010. The complainant says that he is paying the bills regularly. He was also charged Rs.60/- per month even though the complainant is not opted the stipulated service. The complainant opted for number portability to BSNL and the termination was registered by the opposite parties on 25.1.2012 under Ex.A5. But the opposite parties did not provide such facility inspite of repeated requests of him. Then he got issued a legal notice dated 24.2.2012 through his advocate under Ex.A2 demanding the opposite parties to terminate his mobile connection and to pay the excess amount paid by him for non-usage of additional services. The 2nd opposite party received the said notice under Ex.A4 and kept quiet. Ex.A1 is receipt from the opposite parties for Rs.310/- dated 25.1.2012 and bill period from 11.12.2011 to
10.1.2012. Ex.A3 is postal receipts for registered letters to opposite parties 1 and 2 dated 24.2.2012. Ex.A6 is phone bills for the period 11.1.2012 to 10.2.2012 and 10.2.2012 to 10.3.2012 for an amount of Rs.308/- and Rs.403.33 ps respectively.
7. The opposite parties say that the complainant had due amount to the opposite parties and to evade the same he filed this complaint. So for as the termination of the account and transferring account he has not paid the requisite charges as demanded by the opposite parties. The complainant without paying the bill amount has approached this Forum.
8. On perusing material we, the Forum noticed that the complainant paid bill for Rs.310/- for the period 11.12.2011 to 10.1.2012 only under Ex.A1. He gave his termination letter to the opposite parties on 25.1.2012. So he has to pay the bill for the period from 11.1.2012 to 10.2.2012 for an amount of Rs.308/- with late fee of Rs.100/- as he used tele service up to 25.1.2012 total Rs.408/- to the opposite parties. He need not pay the bill for the period 11.2.2012 to 10.3.2012 as the opposite parties received the termination letter from the complainant on 25.1.2012 and neglect to terminate the phone. There is no evidence to say that the complainant was charged Rs.60/- for month. So we cannot direct opposite parties to pay Rs.1,500/- from April, 2010 to April, 2012. We, hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not terminating the service of the complainant. So they are liable for the same. The complainant is entitled relief from the opposite parties. Accordingly these points are answered.
9. In the result the complaint is allowed partly and the opposite parties are severally and jointly directed to terminate the service of the phone of the complainant on receiving the due payment of Rs.408/- i.e., 11.1.2012 to 10.2.2012 bill amount, to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance within ten days. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected. Type written by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 28th day of November, 2012.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite party: -None4
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 Original copy of telephone bill and receipt.
Ex.A2 24.02.2012 Photocopy of legal notice got issued by complainant to Ops.
Ex.A3 Postal receipts.
Ex.A4 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A5 Original phone termination receipt.
Ex.A6 Original phone bills.
On behalf of the opposite parties: - Nil -
PRESIDENT
