Kerala

Trissur

CC/08/641

Kinesis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Communications Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.M.Vinod,Adv.K.Suraj

12 Jan 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/641

Kinesis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Reliance Communications Ltd
Subair Moideen
Proprietor
Sujesh Kumar.V.Varnakodath House,
Access Pharma
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Kinesis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Reliance Communications Ltd 2. Subair Moideen 3. Proprietor 4. Sujesh Kumar.V.Varnakodath House, 5. Access Pharma

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Adv.M.Vinod,Adv.K.Suraj

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:

 
            The complaint is filed to cancel the bills and demand notices issued by the respondents-1 to 4 to the complainant demanding a total amount of Rs.33,847/-. The case of complainant is that the complainant is a pharmaceutical Company and for the purpose of communication between the officials of the complainant company and also with its head office at Chennai they were in search of a feasible group mobile connection. On knowing it 4th respondent approached the complainant with their plan and the specifications of the plan also described to the complainant. Subsequently the complainant subscribed to their plan through 3rd and 4th respondents and the phones were activated on the same day. After that the respondents-1 to 4 started calling the complainant every week asking to pay some amount towards call charges. The amount of first bill issued by the respondents-1 to 4 was very excessive. When enquired with respondents-3 and 4 they informed the petitioner that the group connection facility was activated only after 2 weeks from the date of connection. All the calls among the phones in the group were seen charged. No free calls were seen allowed as per the first bill. The SMS connection was activated only for 2 weeks. The rent shown in phone Nos.9349386430 and 9349376431 were Rs.298/- and Rs.265/- respectively instead of Rs.199/-. Those phones were not seen included in the scheme and were not seen activated as the phones in the group. The first petitioner complained about all the above said problems to respondents-3 and 4 and the 4th respondent deducted Rs.1000/- from some of the bills and asked to pay only the balance amount. But the deducted amount was seen demanded in the subsequent bills. In the subsequent bills also there were many such errors and excessive charges. The complainant had paid Rs.50/- in each phone towards SMS activation charges with the 3rd respondent but all the SMS were seen charges in subsequent bills. It is against the terms of the plan. Likewise there were so many complaints. The complainant paid all the bills up to 4.1.08 under protest and given a letter to the respondents to disconnect all the 19 phones on the very same day. From 4.1.08 onwards the complainant is not using the phones. Even after the termination of the connection the respondents-1 to 4 were issued bills. They have also issued lawyer notices demanding bill amount of some of the phones. Complainant sent reply through lawyer. Even after accepting the lawyer notice the respondents issued some more demand notices and lawyer notices. The complainant issued reply notices and again they have issued five more demand notices. They have harassed the complainant. The 5th respondent is in no way connected with the transaction. By issuing notices to the 5th respondent respondents-1 to 4 are harassing a friend concern of the complainant and the good will of the complainant Company has been defamed. So taking into considering all the circumstances the complainant is entitled for compensation also. The complainant also claims to cancel the bill amount of Rs.33,847/- as the total amount demanded by the respondents. Hence this complaint.
            2. The respondents are called absent and set exparte.
            3. To prove the case complainant has filed affidavit and 33 documents, which are marked as Exts. P1 to P33. 
            4. According to the complainant they are entitled for cancellation of all the bills and demand notices issued by the respondents-1 to 4. The complainant also prays an injunction order to restrain the respondents-1 to 4 from collecting any amount as charges, interest or on any other account with respect to the mobile phone connection allotted to the complainant and also compensation and costs.
 
            5. There is no evidence to the contrary.
 
             6. In the result, complaint is allowed and the bills and demand notices issued by the Respondents-1 to 4 to the complainant after 4.1.08 demanding a total amount of Rs.33,847/- are cancelled and restrained the respondents-1 to 4 from collecting any amount as charges, interest or on any other account in connection with mobile phone numbers of 9349376431 to 9349376447, 9388925586 and 9349386430. The respondents-1 to 4 are further directed to pay to the complainant Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this Litigation. Time for compliance one month.
 

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 12th day of January 2009.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S