1) ISKCON, 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata-700017. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) Reliance Telecommunication Ltd., Reliance House, 34, Chowringee Road, Kolkata-700071. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member. Order No. 11 Dated 1 4 / 0 9 / 2 0 0 9 . It is the specific allegation of the complainant ISKCON of 3C, Albert Road, Kol-17, that on 01/10/2006 they got a telephone connection from Reliance Telecommunication Ltd. the Opposite Party of the case and the Reliance requested them by letter dated 11/10/2006 that they will install a DLC Equipment on the roof of the complainant’s building and it will be exclusively for the use of the complainant. But, ultimately they found that the O.P. was giving connection to thousand of other people who were using their building and boundary walls causing lot of disturbance to the complainant and some personnel of the O.P. use their lift and other facilities everyday invading their privacy. Moreover, since installation the O.P. has not paid a single bill although the complainant requested them several time to pay the electricity bill and to pay Rs. 35,000/- for using the roof of the complainant for supplying telephone connection to other customer. But, the O.P. did not even reply to their letter. They have caused anxiety and used the infrastructure of the complainant for their business gain. And accordingly they should be given exemplary punishment for bad business practice. It appears on perusal of the record that the case was admitted on 25/02/2008 when the Ld. Counsel for the O.P. appeared and undertook to file Vakalatname. But, as he did not filed Vakalatname the date of ex parte hearing was fixed. But further on 03/06/2008 the O.P. filed w/v. along with Vakalatnama and they have denied all the material allegation against them. They have stated the complainant had taken 42 numbers wire line for their land telephone connection and they are distributed in a particular arear from local main distribution box technically called DLC and they have not given any other connection from the DLC setup on the rooftop of the complainant’s premises. They have admitted that they have not paid any electricity bill. But, the complainant has refused to get reimbursement of the electricity bill and bargained to get Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- for such DLC Connection and that their demand is highly unjustified. There is no question of bad business practices for their commercial gain and so the petition of complaint should be dismissed. Decision with reasons : Admittedly the O.P. took installed-DLC equipment on the roof of the complainant and connection to other people were given from the said DLC by the O.P. Further admitted position is that the complainant paid all the electricity bills and the charges for using of electricity from the DLC by other people also. The O.P. has filed a scrap of paper to prove that they ever wanted to pay any electricity bill for the use of DLC by other people. It appears from the letter dated 11/10/2006 that the O.P. stated that “We are hereby confirming that the DLC will be placed for your telephone lines only and for the company’s general use. This equipment will not be used to provide services to other customers of other buildings”. But surprising enough that it has been contended in their w/v. that they approached the complainant for reimbursement of the electricity bill. Had it only been used by the complainant alone, then it is not understood that why the O.P. agreed to reimburse the electricity bill ? So evidently it can be most reasonably presumed that the connection to other people was given from the DLC setup on the roof of the complainant. We have also gone through the letter dated 16/01/2008 written to the O.P. on the subject of non-payment of dues by the O.P. O.P. alleging therein that they had not paid any electricity charges for giving connection to the other people and they invaded their privacy. In a word all the allegations mad out in this letter are the replica of the contents of the petition of complaint. But, the O.P. did not give any reply to letter in question. So it can also be reasonably presumed that the O.P. has admitted the allegations labeled against them. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, evidence on record we are of the opinion that the petition of complaint has got merit of its own and the allegation of unfair trade practice is proved against the O.P. Hence ordered that the petition dated 01/02/2008 is allowed on contest. The O.P. is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost positively within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till the full realization of Rs. 12,000/-. Supply copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees. ____Sd--________ ______Sd--______ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
