Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/86/2007

Magnum Corporate Venture, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Infoc Omm limited., - Opp.Party(s)

Srinath Sridevan

07 Dec 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   31.01.2007

                                                                        Date of Order :   07.12.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.86/2007

THURSDAY THIS 7^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

Magnum Corporate Venture,

Rep. by its Partner,

No.53/25, Kasturi Rangan Road,

Chennai 600 018.                                      Complainant

 

                                            Vs

1. The Manager,

Reliance Infocomm Limited,

Reliance House,
No.6, Haddows Road,

Chennai 600 006.

 

2. The Manager,

Reliance Industrial Limited,

III Floor,

Maker’s Chambers IV,

222, Nariman Point,

Mumbai 400 021.                                      Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Complainant           :    M/s. Srinath Sridevan & others            

Counsel for opposite parties     :    M/s. S.Venkatesan & another    

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to give connection to the cell phone number 93810093828 and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.  

1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  he was a subscriber for the Reliance Mobile phone No.9381009388.  At the time of becoming a member the complainant had issued 12  post dated cheques each for Rs.1800/- for the encashment of telephone bill on the due dates.   During the month of January 2006 the 2^nd opposite party made a debit of Rs.1800/- being the alleged invalid post dated cheque dated 23.10.2005 from the account of the complainant. On 14.2.2006 the complainant requested for clarification. The 2^nd opposite party replied that the cheque dated 23.10.2005 was dishonoured and debited and on 14.3.2006 the complainant requested to sent proof of cheque having been dishonoured by the opposite party bank.     The 2^nd opposite party without sending any proof for the cheque having been dishonoured,  disconnected the telephone on 16.3.2006.   The 2^nd opposite party mentioned that the Auto debits of Rs.1800/- is due to technical error and committed in advertently.    The act of the opposite parties   in making debit entry of Rs.1800/- for the alleged dishonouring of the cheque and the disconnection of phone service for nonpayment of Rs.1800/- amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in the Written Version filed by the  opposite parties is  as follows:

      The  opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite parties submit that presuming without admitting that there had been a “deficiency of service” by the opposite party, the liability is limited to what is agreed upon between both the parties to the agreement (CAF).  The relevant clause-3 of the terms and conditions of CAF are reproduced herein under:

3 Rights and Liabilities of the company

1. . . . .
2. In any event, the maximum overall liability of the company in contract, tort or otherwise, shall be to refund the amount of security deposit, after adjusting the charges due from the subscriber, without prejudice, in no event shall the company its officers, employees, directors, representatives and assigns be liable for any direct, indirect or consequential damages, costs, expenses or losses of whatsoever nature, including but not limited to, loss of profit or loss of business pertaining to the provision of services to the subscriber.

That in view of the aforesaid referred clause of the CAF the claim of the subscriber cannot  go beyond what is agreed upon as stated above.   The opposite party had disconnected the mobile as per the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 Rule 443 for making default of payment.    Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as their evidence and document Ex.A1 to Ex.A8  marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties not filed and no document marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.   The points for the consideration is: 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to have  connection to the cell phone Number 93810093828 as prayed for ?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony with cost as prayed for?

 

5.  POINTS 1 & 2:

        Both parties has not turned up to advance any oral arguments for long time.   The opposite parties has not filed proof affidavit.    Both parties has not preferred to file written argument also.    Perused the records viz complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.  The complainant pleaded in the complaint that  he was a subscriber for the Reliance Mobile phone No.9381009388.  At the time of  membership the complainant had issued 12  post dated cheques each for Rs.1800/- for the encashment of telephone bill on the due dates.   During the month of January 2006 the 2^nd opposite party made a debit of Rs.1800/- being the alleged invalid post dated cheque dated 23.10.2005 from the account of the complainant.   On 14.2.2006 the complainant requested for clarification. The 2^nd opposite party replied that the cheque dated 23.10.2005 was dishonoured and debited and on 14.3.2006 the complainant  requested to send proof of cheque having been dishonoured by the opposite party bank.     The 2^nd opposite party without sending any proof for the cheque having been dishonoured but disconnected the telephone on 16.3.2006.   The 2^nd opposite party mentioned that the Auto debits of Rs.1800/- is due to technical error and committed in advertently as per Ex.A6.    The act of the opposite parties  is in making debit entry of Rs.1800/- for the alleged dishonouring of the cheque and the disconnection of phone service for nonpayment of Rs.1800/- amounts to deficiency in service,    since the complainant has not kept any arrear or none of the cheque bounced.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint   to restore the cell phone connection  with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony.

6.     The opposite parties after filing written version has not come forward to file any proof affidavit and  documents to prove the contention raised in the written version.   The contention raised in  the written version is that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite  parties as per Clause 3 of the terms and conditions of CAF are reproduced herein under :

        “3 Rights and Liabilities of the company

C....

4. In any event, the maximum overall liability of the company in contract, tort or otherwise, shall be to refund the amount of security deposit, after adjusting the charges due from the subscriber, without prejudice, in no event shall the company its officers, employees, directors, representatives and assigns be liable for any direct, indirect or consequential damages, costs, expenses or losses of whatsoever nature, including but not limited to, loss of profit or loss of business pertaining to the provision of services to the subscriber.

is not  acceptable.   Because it is apparently proved  that a sum of Rs.1800/- has been debited by Auto debit due to the error committed by the opposite party which  amounts to deficiency in service.   Equally the opposite parties without any reason and without any intimation disconnected the cell phone.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony with cost of  Rs.5000/- and the points are answered accordingly.

        In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

          The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 7^th day  of  December  2017.  

 MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-                - Copy of letter by the complainant.

Ex.A2- 16.5.2006  - Copy of reply notice.

Ex.A3- 9.5.2006    - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A4- 25.2.2006  - Copy of letter by the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.A5- 14.2.2006  -  Copy of letter by the opposite party to the complainant

Ex.A6- 20.2.2006  -  Copy of letter by the complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.A7-                  -   Copy of bills.

Ex.A8-                 -  Copy of receipts. 

Opposite parties’ side document: -     ..Nil..

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.