COMPLAINT FILED: 25.04.2009<br /> Disposed on 12.06.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> Dated: 12th JUNE 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. S.S. NAGARALE PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.956/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT R. Anand,<br /> S/o Late Sri. Rudraiah,<br /> Aged about 33 years,<br /> Residing at 35/1,<br /> Padmarama Nivas,<br /> 1st Floor, 1st Main, 5th Cross,<br /> Bhuvaneshwari Nagar,<br /> Sultan Palya,<br /> R.T. Nagar Post,<br /> Bangalore – 560 032.<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s Reliance Communications,<br /> Umiya Suntech, 5th Floor,<br /> 7th ‘B’ & ‘C’,<br /> Sadramangala Industrial Area,<br /> White-Field Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 048.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the seeking direction against the Opposite party (herein after called as OP) to waive off the bill charges & to pay compensation & Costs. <br /> -2-<br /> The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows: <br /> <br /> The complainant obtained Broad Band service connection from the OP under I.D. No.345082552530 & A/c No.100000109326701. Though the OP activated connections on 14.06.08 connectivity was intermittent and was never functioned properly complainant raised complaints through customer care No.30337777 on 12.10.08, 18.10.08, 19.10.08, 01.11.08 and 18.10.08 itself complainant sought for termination of service. After few days complainant received a call from the Mumbai office to reconsider his decision of de-activation. In November 2008 a representative of the OP visited & rectified the problem. After a week complainant received a call from the representative of the OP that as per the instructions of the OP he has to disconnect the facility. Complainant tried many times but failed to contact the OP. The OP on 01.11.08 promised to waive of the charges for two months as the connection was not working properly but failed to fulfill its promise. When complainant received demand notice from M/s S.A. Associates, on behalf of OP for payment of the entire amount. Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint & sought for the necessary reliefs. <br /> <br /> 2. On admission & registration of the complaint notice is sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with a notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the Op does not appears to be as bonafide & reasonable, hence OP is placed exparte. <br /> -3-<br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he took broad band connection on 14.06.08 from the OP with MDN No.345082552530 & A/c No.100000109326701. Though OP activated the connection it was intermittent & never functioned properly. Further it is contended that complainant contacted through customer care No.30337777 on several occasions, at last sought for disconnection. In November 2008 a representative of the OP visited the complainant & rectified the problem. After a week the said connection was again disconnected. Though OP has promised to waive off the charges for two months, but failed to fulfill its promise. The copies of the demand notice dated 08.04.09 & bill dated 23.10.08 are produced by the complainant we are satisfied with evidence of the complainant. <br /> <br /> 5. The non appearance of the OP even after due service of the notice leads us to draw on inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. OP failed to provide proper broad band connection service to the complainant inspite of complaints made by complainant on 12.10.08, 18.10.08, 19.10.08 & on 01.11.08 in November 2008, within a week deactivated the same without any notice to complainant. All attempts made by complainant to contact the OP was of no use under the <br /> -4-<br /> circumstances we find deficiency in service on the part of the OP in deactivating & in not providing proper broad band service to the complainant. Hence complainant is not legally bound to pay the amount of Rs.1,122=48 mentioned in the bill dated 23.10.08. The bill raised by the OP is illegal not based on any actual facts. Further Op is estopped from issuing such bills on future. OP being a service provider should see that its customers are served in a better way without giving any scope for negligence or deficiency in service. This act of the OP must have naturally caused mental agony & financial loss to the complainant. Therefore OP is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- litigation cost to the complainant. In the result we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. <br /> <br /> Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost. <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 12th day of June 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />