By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President In OP.883/03 the petitioner alleges as follows: On 6/5/03 the petitioner took a Reliance Mobile Phone connection from the respondent. The phone have insurance benefit and the phone number is 3103975. On 31/7/03 the said phone is stolen and FIR ledged. When the petitioner had approached the respondent for another phone with the FIR, the respondent asked him to pay Rs.3500/-. Only 70% is available as insurance. The respondent has no right to demand Rs.3500/- and without paying any amount he is entitled to replace the phone. There is deficiency of service. Lawyer notice sent on 29/8/03. Reply notice received, but no remedy. Hence the petition. 2. The Counter of the respondent states as follows: The respondent has offered an insurance scheme to the subscriber of Reliance India Mobile as an additional advantage. As per the insurance and warranty the petitioner is eligible for an insurance claim of Rs.7000/- for replacing the hand set, the petitioner has to pay Rs.3500/-. 3. To prove the case of the petitioner he has produced 4 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. 4. On the part of the respondent, 2 documents were marked as Exts. R1 and R2. 5. In OP640/04 the petitioner contended that, by showing 21/5/04 as due date the bill is issued for Rs.23,041/-. The statement date shown is 28/4/04, statement period is 28/3/04 to 27/4/04. The bill issued to a stolen phone is against law and it is prayed to cancel the impugned bill and ban the connection. 6. In the counter respondent admitted that they are ready and willing to waive all the bill amount of the petitioner from the date of lodging the FIR. 7. Two documents were produced on the part of the petitioner and marked as Exts.P1 and P2. 8. The points for consideration are: (1)Whether the petitioner is entitled to pay Rs.3500/- to replace the phone? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the phone connection banned? (3)Reliefs and costs Point No.1 The petitioner in both the case is the same person and has filed the above two Ops against the same respondent. In OP.883/03 the petitioner states that his phone is lost and FIR is lodged. When he approached the respondent to replace with a new phone, the respondent told that as per the insurance scheme the petitioner has to pay Rs.3500/- for replacing anew phone. The respondent had produced Ext.R1 and it speaks about this condition. But the petitioner had produced Ext.P2 and it shows that after sale, all hand sets have one year warranty and 3 years insurance. So as per the terms and conditions of Ext.P2, the petitioner need not pay any amount to replace anew phone. From the records we arrive at a conclusion that at the time of taking the phone connection, the petitioner may not aware of Ext.R1. There may be a chance of concealing such kind of documents. The mobile companies are making attractive offers day by day. So the conditions containing the benefits deemed to be concealed. So the petitioner need not pay Rs.3500/- to replace the phone. This point is found in favour of the petitioner. Point No.2 In OP 640/04, the respondent admitted that they are ready to waive all the bill amount from the date of lodging the FIR in the Police Station. Any way the copy of FIR is not produced, but Ext.P1 shows that, FIR have lodged and enquiries have been made about the lost property. So from 31/7/03, the petitioner need not pay any bill amount to the respondent. He is also entitled to get the phone connection banned. This point is also found in favour of the petitioner. 9. In the result both the petitions are allowed and the respondent is directed to replace the petitioner a new phone of the same model without any payment and also direct to cancel all the bill amount from31/7/03. He is also directed to ban the disputed phone c0nnection. The petitioner is entitled for Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) towards costs. Compliance within one month. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her,corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 23rd day of April 2008.
