BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 476/2003 Filed on 02/12//2003

Dated: 15..12..2009

Complainant:

K. Prabhakaran, Proprietor, Prabha International Exporters, Kovalam Road, Manacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. R. Gopalakrishnan)

Opposite parties:

1. Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Skyline Melody, opp. AIR., Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Reliance Capital Limited, Avdesh House, 2^nd Floor, Pritem Nagar, 1^st slope, Ellin Bridge, Ahmedabad – 380 006.

    

    

(By Adv. N. Padmini)

This O.P having been heard on 30..11..2009, the Forum on 15..12..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

This complaint has been filed against the opposite parties alleging as follows: The complainant is a subscriber of the opposite parties under their pioneer offer made by the 1^st opposite party. On payment of Rs.3,000/- and 12 blank signed cheques in February 2003 by the complainant a hand set was provided to him and requested to wait for two months for activation of the mobile connection. By about April 2003, the mobile connection has been activated by the opposite party but the complainant could not utilise the mobile phone properly. On complaint to the opposite party on several occasions the complainant was told that in his residential area there is no proper mobile range available. Accordingly on 13^th May 2003 and 12^th July 2003 the complainant requested them to take back the mobile set and terminate the mobile connection. Irrespective of such demand over phone and registered letters, the opposite party issued a notice to the complainant stating that he has defaulted the installment of the loan availed from the 2^nd opposite party the Allied Institution of the 1^st opposite party. By not providing sufficient coverage of mobile range the complainant suffered irreparable loss, untold hardship and mental agony. Non acting upon the request of the complainant is negligence on the part of the opposite party. Hence prays for a direction to take back the handset and refund Rs.3,000/- and to return the 12 blank cheques along with compensation and costs.

2. The opposite parties in their version contend that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant had taken the connection under finance option for which he had given 12 post dated cheques. The same is given to cover the cost of the handsets. The complainant had defaulted in clearing the cheques. Totally 3 cheques have been returned dishonoured. The opposite party is not aware of lack of range in the area of the complainant. The complainant had never made a complaint to the opposite party regarding lack of proper range. As per clause 4 (viii) of the terms and conditions, if there is any deficiency in service the subscriber shall intimate the same within 7 days to the Company and the company shall take steps to rectify it. The complainant has not made any such complaint. In case the complainant wants to terminate the services, the complainant could have very well approached the opposite party and surrendered the handset, clear his dues and terminate the services. It is for the complainant to go to the office of the opposite party and get his connection terminated. The complainant has not approached the opposite party at any time to get his service terminated. The complainant had subscribed under the scheme of Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer offer is true. For becoming the Pioneer Club member, he had paid an amount of Rs.3,000/- as club membership fee. The amount is not refundable and it is clearly stated in the brochure. The opposite party has not violated any of the terms and conditions in the pioneer offer, but the complainant had failed to abide by the terms and conditions of which he is fully aware. For the latches on the part of the complainant, the opposite party is not liable. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs to the opposite parties.

3. Both parties have filed their affidavits and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts. D1 to D4 were marked on the part of the opposite parties.

4. From the contentions raised, following issues arise for consideration:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

5. Points (i) & (ii): The complainant alleges that the handset was provided to him in February 2003 and by about April 2003 the connection was activated, but he could not use the same properly as there was no proper mobile range available in his area. According to the complainant, the opposite parties have not acted upon his request. The opposite parties would contend that they were unaware of the lack of range in the area of the complainant and he had never made a complaint regarding lack of proper range. The complainant has produced Exts. P1 to P7 in support of his complaint. As per Exts. P1 & P2 it could be seen that, the opposite parties have been made known regarding the non-availability of Reliance mobile coverage and regarding the stop payment instruction of the cheque since the set is not being used by him. Exts. P6 & P7 series prove the acceptance of the above referred letters by the opposite parties. As per Exts. P1 & P2, the opposite parties have been informed regarding the non-availability of the Reliance mobile coverage on 13/5/2003 and 12/7/2003 respectively. The opposite parties in their version has stated that the complainant has utilised the mobile for a total bill of Rs.966/- upto 30/11/2003 and it has not been cleared. In spite of the said demand made in the version, the opposite parties have not produced any records to prove the said statement of accounts. Moreover as per Ext.P2, the complainant has informed the opposite parties that he is not at all using the set. At this juncture, the burden was on the opposite parties to prove that the complainant had utilised the service of the opposite parties which the opposite parties have failed to prove in this case.

6. In todays modern world of fast developing technology where there are umpteen telephone service providers, the competition is so high that customers will be persuaded by these companies to take their respective connections but the after sales service will be very poorly provided. The enthusiasm to make the customers join as their subscribers are not seen thereafter.

7. Though the opposite parties in their version had contended that if at all the complainant wanted to terminate the services, he could have approached the opposite parties and surrendered the handset, clear his dues and terminate the service, but the complainant has not been seen informed the said procedure for termination of service despite his repeated requests.

8. From the above discussions, we are of the view that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not taking timely action on the request of the complainant as per Ext.P1 and P2. In the above circumstance, we hereby direct the opposite parties to refund the deposit of Rs.3,000/- after deducting any dues and the opposite parties can take back the handset from the complainant. The opposite parties shall return the 12 blank cheques issued to the opposite parties by the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties shall take back the handset from the complainant and refund Rs.3,000/- after deducting the dues if any along with a compensation of Rs.2,000/- and costs Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% till realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 15^th day of December, 2009.

S.K.SREELA MEMBER .

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER .

ad.

O.P. No. 476/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Photocopy of letter dated 13/5/2003 issued to the opposite party by the complainant.

P2 : " dated 12/7/2003 "

P3 : Photocopy of list of cheques in favour of Reliance Capital Ltd.

P4 : Copy of letter dated 17/10/2003 issued to the complainant by opposite parties.

P5 : Copy of letter dated 29/10/2003 issued to the opposite parties by the complainant.

P6 : Postal receipts No.2636, 0883, 0882.

P7 : 3 postal acknowledgment card addressed to opposite parties.

III. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Photocopy of power of Attorney dated 3/7/2004

D2 : Photocopy of customer application form with code No.1065457562.

D3 : Photocopy of brochure of Reliance India Mobile.

D4 : Loan application Form.

PRESIDENT.