By G. Yadunadhan, President:

            Complainant is a businessman engaged in marketing Curry powder.  For the purpose of improving his business he applied for a post paid Reliance mobile telephone connection and he was provided a telephone connection with No. 04953124422.  Complainant approached the opposite parties 2 and 3 to know the details about a new scheme introduced by opposite party No.1.  Believing the words of opposite party No.3, complainant converted his post paid mobile reliance connection into pre paid connection, after paying Rs.2000/- on 21.7.2004, for which opposite party No.2 issued a receipt No. KER KZKD 108104.  After the payment is made by the complainant, opposite party disconnected the above said connection on 1.9.2004 without any information. The reason stated by the opposite party is that the scheme was available only for a certain period and the complainant failed to submit the application within that period.  By doing this act, opposite parties committed deficiency in service.  Hence complainant is seeking relief against the opposite party to reconnect the earlier connection and also to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

            Opposite parties, 1, 2 and 3 entered in appearance and filed version.  Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 denied all the allegations made by the complainant.  Admittedly opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are the agents of opposite party No.1.  Their role is to collect the money on behalf of the 1^st opposite party.  Opposite party No.3 collected the amount and given it to the 1^st opposite party with a request to change the connection into the new scheme introduced by the 1^st opposite party.  Moreover, complainant had not submitted the required papers for effecting the implementation of scheme.  Under these circumstances, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Opposite party No.1 filed version, denied all the averments made by the complainant.  This opposite party had admitted the payment of Rs.2000/-, but he has not submitted any application for migrating to the new scheme and hence the connection is not migrated.  Rs.2000/- which is already paid by the complainant was adjusted to the previous dues.  Therefore complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from opposite party No.1.

            Points for consideration:  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation and if so, what is the quantum?

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant.  Opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence.  Ext. B1 to B4 were marked on the side of opposite parties.  .

            Complainant’s specific case is that he is already migrated to pre-paid scheme from post paid scheme by payment of Rs.2000/- and in spite of that migration to pre-paid scheme his phone was disconnected.  By perusal of Ext. A1 issued by opposite party No.3 on behalf of 1^st opposite party, it shows that the amount is collected towards “all previous dues (migration)”.  Ext. B2 produced by 1^st opposite party also disclosed that complainant has to pay Rs.2477.64 on or before 23.7.2004.  Complainant has nowhere disputed this bill.  Evidence adduced by the complainant himself shows that he had not submitted any application form for the change of scheme.  Ext. B3 and B4 are the similar format of application for change of scheme provided by opposite party No.1.  Complainant is not sure whether he has signed such an application or not.  Ext. A3 is only based on the letter of the complainant and that does not amount to any admission by opposite party No.1.  It is an admitted case that Rs.2000/- has been received from the complainant on 21.7.2004 and that was credited towards the outstanding dues (migration) payable by the complainant.  The only grievance of the complainant is that it was done without his permission and no separate receipt is given for the same.  Ext. A1 dated 21.7.2004 shows that the amount received is towards all the previous dues.  There is no evidence against the opposite parties 2 and 3 that complainant approached them to know about the new scheme.  As Ext. B2 was not paid till 12.6.2004, it is the duty of the opposite party No.1 to collect and adjust the bill amount as seen from Ext. A1 receipt.  Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from opposite parties.

            Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Pronounced in open Court this the 29^th day of September 2009.

                                    Sd/-President                           Sd/-Member

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1        Receipt No. KER/KZ/KD/108104 dated 21.7.04 for Rs.2000/-.

A2        Photocopy of letter sent by the complainant to 1^st O.P.

A3        Letter from 1^st O.P. to complainant.

A4        Photocopy of lawyer notice sent by the complainant to opposite parties.

A5        Bill from O.P. No.1 to complainant dated 1.10.2003.

Documents exhibited for the opposite parties.

B1         Photocopy of application form.

B2         Photocopy of Bill dated 1.7.2004.

B3         Photocopy of Service Migration Form.

B4         Photocopy of filled up service migration form.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1     Krishnadas, S/o. Chandran.P., Peedika Thara House, P.O. Chaliyam.

Witness examined for the opposite parties:

None.

-/True copy/-

Sd/-President

(Forwarded/by Order)

Senior Superintendent.