DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 25th day of May, 2007<br /> <br /> Present: Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member <br /> C.C.No.68/2006<br /> Ram Asray Singh,<br /> S/o.Late Ram Bali Singh,<br /> S – 331, Sahyadri Colony,<br /> Chandranagar, Palakkad – 7 - Complainant <br /> <br /> Vs<br /> <br /> Reliance India Mobile,<br /> Mangalam Towers, Palakkad. - Opposite party <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> By Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> <br /> The complainant in this complaint had two mobile phone connections bearing number 04913204587 and 0491-3113865 and a wireless land phone connection bearing number 0491 3091002 and the last one was connected to his computer. According to the complainant opposite party had cut off his STD services for days without informing him, on the specious plea that the bills were outstanding. It is submitted in the complaint that the opposite party sent wrong bills with erroneous charges. But the local opposite party office made corrections on his request and promised that the records would be amended. But the errors and the over billing continued to be carried forward because the corrections made by the local office were never carried out by opposite party regional office at Ernakulam or by the Central Office at <br /> <br /> : 2 :<br /> Mumbai. The complainant wrote to them several times, without any positive result.<br /> <br /> The complainant gave a cheque for Rs.900/- on 15.10.2003 in payment of the Telephone bill and later informed the opposite party that it had not been cleared. Then only the opposite party realized that the cheque was missing. But, they finally presented the cheque to the Bank on 27.01.2004 and also charged a monthly late payment penalty. The opposite party took a long time before they claimed to have adjusted the excess charges. The complainant alleges that when he failed to receive the bills on time, he would go to opposite party's local office to make the payment of the bills in time. It is also submitted that the three cheques handed over by the complainant to the opposite party as advance payment for three connections were put to one single connection and it took months for them to correct their mistakes. But non payment penalties were imposed on the other two phone connections. Under the Reliance to Reliance calls free scheme, the complainant choose the Reliance phone number of a friend in Palakkad. The opposite party withdrew the facility without informing the complainant and started billing him Rs.50/- per month extra. He also averred in the complaint that the opposite party charged Rs.700/- rental for his mobile phone connections, but gave him 100 minutes worth of free calls instead of 400 minutes of free calls as promised in 700 scheme. More over the opposite party cut off the STD facilities of the complainant without rhyme or reason and also cut off the land line connection to the computer without notice when all the bills were fully paid up. The complainant demanded to return his deposit of Rs.1800/- and take back the instrument. But the opposite party had failed to settle the problem. The complainant submits that the disconnection of STD and land line connection caused considerable business losses . He could not contact his doctors in Coimbatore <br /> : 3 :<br /> and they were not able to contact him as he had undergone a major surgery to remove one of his Kidneys which was cancerous and had to be in contact to be in constant touch with Doctors in Coimbatore who had done the procedure. Feeling aggrieved, this compliant is filed before the Forum seeking an order directing opposite party to stop the harassment and to pay compensation to the complainant towards the harassment and loss suffered by him.<br /> <br /> The complaint was admitted and served notice to the opposite party for their appearance before this forum. The opposite party appeared and filed their version. It is admitted in the version that the complainant had obtained three phone connections from them. The opposite party has denied the allegations that the complainant had constant problems with the billing as well as the services rendered by them and also the accounts are centralized in Mumbai or Ernakulam. If it was so, the complainant had not impleaded Mumbai and Ernakulam authorities where the alleged cause of action took place.<br /> The opposite party averred that the allegation of the so called incident on October 15th 2002 in the complaint was time barred and hence of no significance. It is submitted that the incident of three cheque handed over by the complainant to the opposite party as advance payment for three connections were put to one single connection was due to sheer negligence of the complainant and not of the opposite party because the complainant was at liberty to write down Account number (or phone number) in each and every cheque he issued. A cheque issued against one account can never be realized in another account. The opposite party further states that the “Reliance to Reliance local calls free scheme existed only for one year and after the expiry of the aforesaid scheme Rs.50/- was charged per month”. According to the <br /> : 4 :<br /> opposite party the complainant did not give instruction in writing to withdraw the same facilities and allegation of 400 numbers free calls was time barred since the incident took place in the year 2003. The opposite party admits that they had collected a sum of Rs.1800/- in land line connection out of which the actual deposit was Rs.1000/- and Rs.800/- was the installation charges the latter was non refundable. The opposite party was ready to adjust the advance of Rs.1000/- towards the arrears of the connection.<br /> <br /> The opposite party in their version alleged that the complainant was liable to remit a sum of Rs.4788/- as telephone charges towards the outstanding balance in the three connections. It is also stated that none of the allegations were backed by details or proof and there was no cause of action for the complaint. The prayer was not proper. The opposite party prayed before this Forum to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost since the complaint filed was experimental.<br /> <br /> The complainant filed proof affidavit as well as documents. The opposite party also filed Affidavit. Ext A1 series and A2 Series marked from the side of the complainant. Evidence was closed. We heard both the parties and perused all the relevant documents on record.<br /> <br /> It is an admitted fact that the complainant had availed Two mobile phone connections (0491-3204587 & 0491-3113865) and one WLL land line connection (0491-3091002) from the opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party had rendered poor and erratic services to the complainant by sending wrong bills and the sudden severance of his STD facilities for days at a time on the erroneous ground that the bills were outstanding when he had paid up all the bills on time and in full. Finally the <br /> : 5 :<br /> land line connected to his computer was also cut off with out any prior notice. But the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant had no problem with their services and not suffered any monitory loss. Moreover they were ready to adjust the advance amount of Rs.1000/- towards the outstanding balance of Rs.4,788/-.<br /> <br /> We find that the opposite party have failed to produce any document before the Forum in support of their contentions. They did not care to respond to the letters of the complainant (Ext A2 (4) to A2 (6) ) stating his grievances with regard to their services and billing. According to the Ext A1(1) & A1(8) the opposite party had also claimed late payment charges by making wrong entry of payment cheque paid in a advance. There is no doubt from the Ext A1(1) to A1(8) that opposite party had issued wrong bills and unjustified charges to the complainant and their local staff at Palakkad reduced the amount entered in each case as requested by the complainant. We also notice that the opposite party had offered the complainant Rs.375/- worth free talk time for the connection Nos.3113865 & 3204587. But the complainant did not get any free talk time under the above mentioned scheme and this is nothing but a deceptive practice. It is also not proper on the side of the opposite party to disconnect the telephone connection of the complainant without a prior notice or information. We admit that the disconnection of the telephone had caused much difficulty to complainant since he had undergone a major surgery and had to be in constant touch with the Doctors. It is obvious that the complainant was penalized for no fault of his.<br /> <br /> In the light of the facts set forth above we are of the view that there is substance in the allegations made by the complainant. Hence we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the result <br /> : 6 :<br /> the complaint is allowed. Unfortunately we, with available documents on <br /> record, are not in position to allow the claim refund of deposit to the complainant.<br /> <br /> We direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation towards mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order along with cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only). <br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of May, 2007 <br /> <br /> Member (Sd)<br /> Member (Sd)<br /> Appendix<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant <br /> Ext.A1 (Series) 8 in Nos. - Bills issued by opposite party to complainant <br /> Ext.A2 (Series) 5 in Nos. - Letter written by complainant to opposite party and reply received from opposite party <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party <br /> Nil <br /> Cost (allowed)<br /> Rs.500 (Rupees Five hundred only) allowed to complainant <br /> <br /> Forwarded/By Order,<br /> Sd/-<br /> Senior Superintendent