BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 21st day of December, 2005.
C.D.No.116/2005
Dr.Smt. P.S.R.Prasanna,
Senior Medical Officer,
Specialist in Gynaec and Obst,
A.P.S.R.T.C,
R/o 44-103,
Prakash Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1.Reliance Infocomm Service,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
S.V.Complex,
Kurnool.
2.Reliance Infocomm by its Managing Director,
Regd. Office.EO.1, Reliance Greens,
Village Motikhavdi P.O .Digvijaygram,
District.Jamnagar-361140 (Gujarat) . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 13.12.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri Y.Rajasekar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri P.Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties No.1 and No.2, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, Hon’ble President)
1. This CD case of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking direction on the opposite party to refund the deposited amount of Rs.5,000/- with 24% interest from the date of deposit till the date of realization, Rs.1,00,000/- as professional loss due to baring of calls, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered and Rs.50,000/- as cost for deficiency and the negligence in services of the opposite party, Rs.20,000/- towards unfair trade practice and misrepresentation and costs of this case alleging the complainant’s is joining RIM Family as DAP club member depositing Rs.5,000/- and 12 post dated cheques No.436384 to 436395 each of Rs.1,800/- believing the publicity of opposite party as to excellent service and paid the bill amount upto 1-1-2005 further alleges and disparity of the opposite parties towards the complainant by providing similar services to the subsequent customers at a nominal fee of Rs.1/- and the complainant getting a bill of Rs.3,012/- in October 2003 disproportionate to her usage and her efforts to have clarification on that gone in vain and on contact to customer care executive Mumbai getting an assurance for waiver of said charges till March 2004 with a direction to pay only call charges till them and clearance of pending bills worth Rs.2,278/- by complainant through cheque No.253601 dated 17-6-2004 of SBI Market Yard, Kurnool and there after receipt of a letter from RIM Mumbai regretting for inconvenience of the complainant and some days there after receipt of demand calls for huger amounts as due and threatening to baring of calls and requiring her to shift to pre paid system from existing tariff scheme and often demanding the clearance of arrears without any arrears and this conduct of opposite parties inspite of clearing of all dues ensured mental anxiety and constituent anguish besides to telling upon her profession and to her needy patients.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and filed written version of the opposite party No.1 and its adoption by opposite party No.2 denying their liability to the complainants claim alleging non maintainability of the case for want of jurisdiction to this Forum and proper cause of action and admitting the case of the complainant to the extent of deposit of Rs.5,000/- and 12 post dated cheques and alleging complainant status as near subscriber to Relience India Mobile No.9393810473 and payment of Rs.65/- under a cheque and requesting strict proof of the complainant averments as to regular payment of bills and alleged disparity, assurance or promise of waiver adjustment on records the R-connect bill of Rs.3,012/-, entitleness of the complainant for Rs.2,278/- as 30% rebate, and the alleged technical problems in user of the bills alleged penalization of complainant and loss suffered and the complainants entitleness to any of the claims made and the alleged inferiority in service rendered by the opposite party and the alleged status of complainant as consumer to proceed in Forum. The opposite party further contested the case of the complainant as the speculative and the baring of calls at the defaultive conduct of the complainant in paying the bills regularly and seek the dismissal of the complainant with costs.
3. In substantiation of contentions while the complainant side has relied upon documentary record in Ex.A1 to A10 besides to his sworn affidavit and reply of opposite party to the interrogatories, the opposite party side, the opposite party has relied upon documentary record in Ex.B1 and B2 besides sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 and replies got to the interrogatories.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any alleged deficiency of services, unfair trade practice of the opposite parties and the liability of the opposite parties for said claim made in the complaint.
5. The Ex.A1 is the office copy of the letter dated 10-2-2004 said to have been addressed by the complainant to the customer care executive Mumbai as to excess billing of R-connect call charges and not providing detailed billing. The said letter even though avers several things as being addressed to any of the opposite party concerned in this case it leaves any binding effect on the contesting opposite parties of this case or on their accountability to the matters avered therein apart form the fact of they being not substantiated with any cogent material.
6. The Ex.A2 is the office copy of letter dated 20-6-2004 said to have been addressed by the complainant to the customer care executive, Relience India Mobile, S.V.Complex, Kurnool it envisages delivery of traced out handset by the complainant requiring the arrangement for payment to the complainant the appropriate amount on production of said handset .The said addressee being not party to this case proceedings there arrires any liability of the opposite parties to respond to the said Ex.A2.
7. The Ex.A3 is the office copy of the letter dated 12-7-2004 said to have been addressed by the complainant to the customer care executive Mumbai as to clearance of billing backlog and previous dues. But as said addressee being not the opposite party to this case there remains any liability of the opposite parties of this case to respond to the grievances mentioned there in.
8. The Ex.A4 is a letter addressed by the Reliane Infocom Ltd., Navi Bombay in reply to Ex.A3 of the complaint. The contents of said letter makes any admission in specific except avering formally if the dues were paid already any calls for the dues which are auto generative of their system, to avoid any inconvenience, may be ignored and furnishing the contact address in case of any necessarily contingence. Hence, the said Ex.A4 leaves any relevancy for appreciation of the agitating cause of the complainant, especially when it was addressed by one who is not opposite party to this case.
9. The Ex.A5 contains two receipts dated 11-9-2004 which were said to have been issued for Relience Infocom services as to receipt of Rs.2,711/- and Rs.2,000/- from the complainant. While it does not envisage the particulars of said payment, the averments of para No. 14 of the complaint even are not intelligible to say exactly towards what of the specific dues the said amount was paid. While such is so with the complainant the averments in para No.14 and Ex.A5 receipts, the averments of para No.17 and 18 of written version says the complainant was holding a due of sum of Rs.8,439.90 ps as on 1-9-2004 and the said payment of Rs.4,711/- as part payment of said due leaving a residuary due of Rs.3,723.90 ps. But no where the complaint has given any calculation to say the said payment of Rs.4,711/- was made in clearance of all dues. Hence, the said receipt of amount envisaged in Ex.A5 remains as of one part payment of the outstanding due.
10. The Ex.A6 dated 1-11-2004 issued by the Relience India Mobile was pressed into record by the complainant to say that she was selected to be a part of best customer award programme and to say further that if the complainant is having any outstanding due arrears towards her cell phone the said selection mentioned in the Ex.A6 is would not have been possible. No where the reading of the contents of said Ex.A6 envisages as such or to mean with that it was given in consideration of the complainant outstanding due as nil. Hence there appears any merit in said plea as to Ex.A6.
11. The reference to Ex.A6 was taken by the complainant as to constitute deficiency services of the opposite party in not paying her the amount of free talk time of Rs.250/- each alleged in said Ex.A6. As the reading of the contents of said Ex.A6 says of its availment by customer for the adjustments from said amount at Rs.1/- per minute for the calls with RIM phone and Rs.2/- per minute to any other phones in India while making local calls as well as STD calls, the said appears to be a mere privilege of the customer for its availment in making calls to RIM phone or any other phones in India and not as any cash award to be payable to the customer in cash. Therefore the complainant feeling deficiency of the services of the opposite party in not paying the said free talk time amount appears to be misunderstanding of the complainant of the concept of said free talk time especially when the complainant not even shown by any cogent material that the said adjustment was not even allowed by the opposite parties in the phone calls made by the complainant.
12. The Ex.A7 is the office copy of the notice dated 14-2-2005 caused by the complainant by register post on to opposite party No.1 and 2 alleging the complaint averments for the first time. Even though no postal acknowledgement of the receipt of said notice in Ex.A7 by opposite party was filed by the complainant but as Ex.B2 reply notice dated 14-4-2005 refer to this notice also besides an earlier reply notice dated 21-12-2005 it is remaining clear that the said notice in Ex.A7 was received by the opposite party and was responded not only vide Ex.B2 but also by an earlier reply dated 21-2-2005 in Ex.A9. The Ex.A9 reply to the notice dated 14-2-2005 in Ex.A7, says the discounts promised after to the payment of Rs.4,711/- have been passed and reflected on 5th October 2004 in the statement of account attached to therein. The statement attached to Ex.A9 indicates three adjustments on said date amounting to Rs.2,282.14 ps (i.e. Rs.2,070.91+Rs.207.09+Rs.4.14 ps)
13. The Ex.A9 is saying that the follow up action taking the issue with the concerned, as to refund of Rs.1,500/- against the lost and found handset return to company, and the said amount will be refunded as and when the said amount is received, from the concerned, keeping in touch with the complainant. When no material is shown that it is the liability of the opposite party irrespective of having any refund from the concerned company there appears any deficiency on the part of the opposite party in taking the said problem with the concerned and promising to pay as and when received and especially when the said amount of Rs.1,500/- was received by the complainant on 2-12-2005 filing a memo to that effect.
14. In Ex.A7 the complainant mentions that he was paying the bills regularly and promptly up to date. But any such cogent material record is placed to appreciate to said stand.
15. In Ex.A7 the complainant alleges that he received an abnormally high bill for Rs.3,012/- which is not in conformity with her usage. In substantiation of said fact the complainant did not place any such cogent material record to feel what is her normal usage and to feel there by any abnormality in said bill for Rs.3,012/-
16. It is says further that he paid Rs.2,278/- agreeing for 30% waiver of in said bill of Rs.3,012/- the said submission is also not remaining consistent as the net amount after taking said 30% waiver amount works out to Rs.2,108/- (i.e. 3,012 X 30% =903.60ps, 3,012-904=2,108/-) and not Rs.2,278/-.
17. The Ex.A10 is another notice dated 9-3-2005 caused on the opposite parties without reference of any early correspondence, reiterating the grievances of the complainant once again. For many of which the Ex.A9 covered already. Except making several allegations the complainant has not placed any cogent material in substantiation of them nor to feel the liability of the opposite parties to the claims made. When such as the thing it is very hard to estimate and assess any so called mental agony, anxiety and argush alleged and so called alleged hardship to herself and her patients and there by it appear to be a speculative one without any substantiation especially when the complainant was a paid employee working as a medical officer in APSRTC and could have hardly any private practice and especially when none of here patients filed any affidavit in support of the complainant to feel of any of their inconvenience on account of any alleged inconveniences, the complainant alleges to have suffered with the services of the opposite party as to the said cell phone.
18. This Forum being not competent to adjudicate the matters relating to any defamation the complainant estimates as to damages and injury to the tune of Rs.1.5 lakhs alleged in Ex.A10 is beyond the competency of this Forum any adjudication.
19. The complainant except alleging professional loss at the disconnection of her mobile and estimating said loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- did not place any such cogent material either to the alleged disconnection as purely at the faulty conduct of the opposite party or of any considerable cogent material which works out the said professional losses alleged on account of disconnection the cell phone. Hence there appears any justifiability in the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- towards professional loss and claim of Rs.50,000/- for any mental agony or there appears any material to feel any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party as any cogent material such as terms and conditions governing the privies of the parties concerned in this case are filed and hence there appears any justification in the claim of Rs.20,000/- under count of unfair trade practice.
20. Both in Ex.A10 and in the complainant averments the claim of the complainant is for refund of deposit amount of Rs.5,000/- and return of her post dated cheques. But did not pace any such rules and regulations, terms and conditions governing the said mobile cell services and of the circumstances when the complainant can seek termination of services and the refund of the deposit and post dated cheques. Hence in the absence of any such material this Forum is not inclined to pass any order directing the opposite parties for refund of the amounts of sought by the complainant. But however this would not prevent the complainant from applying for termination of mobile phone services lent by the opposite party subject to the terms and conditions rules and regulations governing the said mobile services and seek the refund of the amounts permissible there under as the Ex.B1 shows the complainant privy with the opposite party as to said mobile phone services and the amount deposited by her.
21. Hence, in the result of the above discussion as any deficiency service of the opposite parties made out by the complainant exposing the liability of the opposite parties for the claim of the complainant, this complaint remains devoid of merit and force and consequently it is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 21st day of December, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Office copy of the letter, Dt.10-2-2004 to opposite parties by
complainant
Ex.A2 Office copy of letter, Dt.20-6-2004 to opposite parties by
complainant
Ex.A3 Office copy of letter, Dt.12-7-2004 to opposite parties by
complainant
Ex.A4 Letter dated 29-7-2004 addressed by opposite parties to
complainant
Ex.A5 Two receipts Nos.41350 & 41344, Dt.11-9-2004 for Rs.2,711/- &
Rs.2,000/-
Ex.A6 Best customer received opposite parties to complainant dated
01-11-2004
Ex.A7 Letter, Dt.14-2-2005 of complainant to opposite parties 1 and 2
along with (2) postal receipts.
Ex.A8 Original demand bill Dt.1-1-2005 bill period from 1-12-2004 to
31-12-2004 bill No.20001108475372
Ex.A9 Letter, Dt..21-2-2005 addressed to complainant by opposite party
Ex.A10 Office copy of legal notice Dt.9-3-2005.
Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Attested copy of the Customer Application Form
Ex.B2 Office copy of the Reply Legal notice Dt.14-4-2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri. Y.Rajasekar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri. P.Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
