BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION- HYDERABAD
F.A.No.1748 OF 2005 AGAINST C.D.NO.573 OF 2004 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I HYDERABAD
Between
T.Rajeshwar S/o late Chandraiah,
aged about 75 yrs, Occ- Business
R/o 4-7-179, Qr.No.12, Esamiya Bazar
Koti, Hyderabad
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Reliance India Market Chambers
IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai-021
2. The Manager,
The Reliance Infocom,
Service Division of Reliance Industries
Somajiguda, Hyderabad
Respondents/Opposite parties
F.A.No.1832 OF 2005 AGAINST P.P.NO.117 OF 2004 IN I.A.NO.185 OF 2004 IN C.D.NO.573 OF 2004
Between
T.Rajeshwar S/o late Chandraiah,
aged about 75 yrs, Occ- Business
R/o 4-7-179, Qr.No.12, Esamiya Bazar
Koti, Hyderabad
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Reliance India Market Chambers
IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai-021
2. The Manager,
The Reliance Infocom,
Service Division of Reliance Industries
Somajiguda, Hyderabad
Respondents/Opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant Sri K.Satyanarayana
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri V.L.V.Ram Mohan Rao
Counsel for the Respondent No.2
QUORUM- THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
and
SMT M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
Oral Order ( As per the Smt M.Shreesha, Member)
---
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.573 of 2004 the complainant preferred appeal F.A.No.1832 of 2005. He also preferred F.A.No.1748 of 2005 aggrieved by the order in P.P.No.117 of 2004 in I.A.No.185 of 2004 in C.D.No.573 of 2004 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad. Since both the appeals deal with common facts and arise out of common C.D. they are being disposed of by the common order.
The brief facts as set out in complaint are that the complainant after issuing news paper advertisements paid an initial amount along with post dated cheques to the opposite parties. Thereafter the opposite parties provided an instrument along with No.040 31054399. The complainant was having facility of STD and ISD along with local call facilities. The opposite parties sent bill for the period from 2.10.2003 to 1.11.2003 claiming an amount of RS.4,187/- by showing previous balance as Rs.3,185/- and current bill as Rs.2085.92. The opposite parties were sending the bills wrongly by showing the balance amounts as Rs.6,612/- for the period 2.1.2004 to 1.2.2004 and Rs.3,207/- for the period 2.2.2004 to 17.3.2004. The complainant brought the same to the notice of the opposite party for rectification but instead of rectifying the same had disconnected STD/ISD and other facilities. Therefore he got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties and filed this complaint.
The opposite parties filed counter stating the complainant is a subscriber of Reliance India Mobile Phone NO.31054399 with A/c No.5400027982. The complainant subsequently opted for multi colour screen display handset which originally has a pre-assigned No.31084915. The complainant while migrating from non-colour handset to colour handset requested for retaining the existing NO.31054399 and the process of existing to the said request involved 2 to 3 months time and accordingly the bills dated 2.2.2004 and 28.3.2004 were issued to the complainant but the said bills shown pre-assigned NO.31084916.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e., Exs.A1 to A20 and Exs.B1 to B9 dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred this appeal F.A.No.1748 of 2005 and submitted that the District Forum in stead of going in to merits of the issues raised has dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it was not a consumer dispute and that the complainant failed to substantiate his claim that the opposite parties issued false and incorrect bills.
The Party in person submitted that the bills issued by the opposite parties are wrong and there was no application for allotting a new number and that the District Forum did not give him an opportunity to lead evidence.
The complainant filed F.A.No.1832 of 2005 aggrieved by the order in P.P.No.117 of 2004 in I.A.No.185 of 2005 wherein the District Forum in observed that the respondents had disconnected the telephone without issuing any notice on account of which the petitioner had suffered a lot and directed the respondents/opposite parties to restore the STD and ISD facilities without costs. Thereafter the petitioner filed P.P.No.117 of 2004 seeking direction to punish the respondents for violating the orders passed by the District Forum in I.A.No.185 of 2004.
We have perused the material on record.
The District Forum while dismissing the C.D. on the ground that it was not a consumer dispute and that the complainant failed to substantiate his case that the opposite parties issued false bills has allowed I.A.No.185 of 2004 directing to restore STD/ISD connections on the ground that the details of the disputed period were not mentioned in the said call particulars and that the STD and ISD facilities were disconnected without giving any prior notice. The District Forum also observed that the complainant has made out a ground for restoration of facilities. We are of the considered view that the present C.D. concerned with the discrepancies in the telephone bills is a consumer dispute and the complainant falls within the ambit of C.P. Act. We remand this case to the District Forum giving opportunity to both the parties while directing the opposite parties to reconnect the STD/ISD connections pending disposal of the C.D. The District Forum is directed to dispose of the C.D. within 3 months from the date of disposal of the order since the matter pertains to the year 2004.
In the result these appeals are allowed with the aforementioned directions.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
9.6.2008
KMK-
