IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
C C No. 04/2016
Wednesday, the 13th day of April, 2016
Petitioners : Dr. Vivish Thomas,
Managing Partner,
Veesco Bricks & Stone Crusher Unit,
Vettoor Centre,
T.B. Road, Kottayam Dist.
Kerala State, Kottayam P.O. – 686 001.
(Adv. Bobby John and Adv. Asha Antony)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Reliance Communications Limited,
Block H, Dhirubhai Ambani
Knowledge City,
Thane Belapur Road, Koparkhairne,
Navi Mumbai – 400 710.
2) Lakshmi Menon,
Sales Manager,
Reliance Communications Limited,
2nd Floor, A&P Arcade, S.A. Road,
Kadavanthara, Kochi – 16.
(For Op 1 and 2, Adv. N. Gopalakrishnan)
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 05/01/2016 is as follows,
The complainant, for availing a network connection submitted necessary application form alongiwth service agreement and documents with the opposite parties. And as per the request of the opposite party, he had transferred an amount of Rs.50,005/-to the account of the 1st opposite party. According to the complainant, before submitting the application, tele-verifiaction was done by the opposite parties and some employees of the opposite parties had visited the location of the complainant. And they agreed to provide proper network connection. But there was no response from the part of opposite parties for a long time. So the complainant makes several phone calls and sent several mails. Then on 12/09/2015, the complainant has got a call from the opposite party and intimated that the reliance network connection is not possible at the unit of the complainant and the registration amount of Rs.50,005/- would be refund within 48 hours. But none of the opposite parties has not cared to refund the registration amount as promised. Thus on 22/10/15 the complainant had sent lawyers notice to the opposite party. Evenafter accepting notice there was no response. According to the complainant, the opposite parties are bound to return the amount with interest and the said act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
The opposite parties appeared before the Fora but they has not cared to file version in time as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil Appeal Nos. 10941-10942/13, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose cold Categorically stated that on receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is required to be given notice directing him to give version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum or the Commission, the opposite party has not filed version within 30 days or within extended period, version given by the opposite party cannot be accepted.
Points for determinations are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the Proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A4 documents.
Point No.1
The crux of the complainant’s case is that evenafter accepting the application form with documents and collecting Rs.50,005/- the opposite party has not cared to provide network connection or refund the registration amount of Rs.50,005/-. The complainant produced the copy of the Bank statement of his account with the State Bank of Travancore, Kottayam branch and the same is marked as Ext.A1. From Ext.A1, it is seen that on 30/05/2015 Rs.50,005/- was transferred to the account of the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the copy of the lawyers notice dtd.22/10/15 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext.A3 are the postal receipts and Ext.A4 series are the AD cards. In the absence of contra evidence, we are constrained to rely on the proof affidavit and documents of the complainant. So in our view, the act of opposite parties in not providing the network connection after collecting Rs.50,005/- and in not refunding the registration amount of Rs.50,005/- as promised amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Due to the said act of opposite parties, complainant had suffered much mental pain and loss. So he is to be compensated. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the finding in Point No.1 complaint is allowed.
In the result,
- Opposite parties are ordered to refund Rs.50,005/- to the complainant.
- Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
- Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 13th day of April, 2016.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1 : Copy of bank account statement for the period 30/05/15 to 31/05/15
Ext. A 2 : Copy of lawyers notice dtd.22/10/15
Ext.A3series: postal receipts (2 Nos.)
Ext.A4 series: Postal AD card (2 Nos.)
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
