NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/935/2009

MRS. INDIRA KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

03 Feb 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 935 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 15/10/2008 in Appeal No. 265/2006 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu)
1. MRS. INDIRA KUMARFlat B3 Ashok Suparna 27 III Main Road. KB. Nagar Adyar Cheennai -600020 ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & ORS.H.Block No.1, Floor. Dhirubahi Ambani Knowledge City , Navi Mumbai -400710Maharastra 2. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.Reliance House No. 6, Haddows RoadChennai 600 0063. RELIANCE WEB WORLD105, First Main Road, Gandhi NagarChennai 600020. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 03 Feb 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 No one appears for petitioner even on second call, which shows   reluctance of the petitioner to prosecute the proceeding and revision petition merits dismissal on this count alone.  However, we have gone into merit of the case also.   Heard learned counsel for respondent who is present.

The factual backgrounds are that petitioner who was a subscriber of wireless telephone provided by respondent – company surrendered telephonic connection to respondent and also returned instrument on 13.12.2003.  Since bills continues to be raised by respondent  - company and also that there was no refund of deposit of Rs.1000/- made by petitioner, she filed a consumer complaint with District Forum.  The District Forum on strength of pleadings of parties having accepted complaint, directed respondent – company to refund amount of Rs.1000/- made by petitioner along with 9% interest and also awarded compensation of Rs.2500/- with litigation cost of Rs.500/-.  Petitioner not yet getting satisfied with award made by District Forum, approached State Commission in appeal for award of punitive damages and State Commission on consideration of the issue and having regard to the suffering of petitioner, enhanced compensation of Rs.2500/- to Rs.10,000/-.  Litigation cost of Rs.500/- was also enhanced to Rs.2000/-.  Learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that after telephonic connection was deactivated on 13.12.2003, due to inadvertence, bills were raised.   Though petitioner has sought fabulous compensation on fanciful damages on his estimation, we are of the view that grievance of petitioner in view of his sufferings had been adequately redressed by State Commission and hence we find no good reason to interfere with finding of State Commission.  Learned counsel for respondent – company, however, submits that since award of District Forum has already been honoured, making payment to petitioner – company intends to make payment of residual amount in terms of award of State Commission to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.  We accordingly while dismissing the revision petition directed the respondent – company to honour award of State Commission within a period of four weeks.  Dasti order be collected by respondent - company.

 



......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER