Date of Filing: 10.01.2011
Date of Order: 09.03.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20
Dated: 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2011
PRESENT
Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.
Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.
COMPLAINT NO: 58 OF 2011
R.N. Shastri IAS (Retd)
No. 42, MCHS, IAS Officers Colony
5th B Cross, 16th Main
BTM Layout 2nd Stage
Bangalore 560 076 Complainant
V/S
Suman
Senior Manager, Tata Teleservices Ltd.
B Block, Silicon Terraces
30/1 Hosur Main Road
Koramangala, Bangalore 560095 Opposite Party
ORDER
By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The facts of the case are that on 23.10.2009 complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 2,100/- under receipt No. 558. He was to be provided with internet connection within next few days. However, connection was never provided. Therefore, the complainant has not been able to use the said connection at all to this date. Even then, the opposite party has been sending bills from November 2009 onwards asking complainant to pay the amount for non-existent connection. In this regard complainant has written / spoken to the Tata Indicom. Complainant had explained the whole case. The question of payment of monthly charges did not arise. Legal notice was sent to the complainant asking to pay Rs. 1,202/-. Complainant has sent reply letter and explained that the said connection has never functioned from the first day. The legal notice of the opposite party is misleading, unethical and totally unjustified. They are sending bills to harass and give mental torture. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to return initial deposit of Rs. 2,100/- and to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment.
2. After admitting the complaint notice was sent to opposite party by registered post. When the case was set for appearance of the opposite party on 03.03.2011 opposite party was called out. Nobody appeared on behalf of opposite party. There was no representation for opposite party. Hence, opposite party was placed exparte.
3. Complainant was present in person and his submissions were heard. We have gone through the complaint averments and documents.
4. The complainant has produced receipt dated 23.10.2009. It is for Rs. 2,100/-. The complainant has produced several bills received from opposite party. He has also produced the letter, all the correspondence and also the copy of legal notice sent by the opposite party. As per the averment of the complainant he had paid Rs.2,100/- on 23.10.2009 to the opposite party for internet connection. However, the connection was never provided from the day one. In spite of that opposite party has been sending bills from November 2009 onwards asking the complainant to pay the amount for non-existent connection. The case made out by the complainant shall have to be accepted as true and correct since, the opposite party has not appeared before this forum and contested the matter even though served with notice. The opposite party for the best reasons known to them has remained silent and even they have not chosen to send defence version by post. Therefore, it appears that the opposite party has no defence to make. That is why they have chosen to remain absent. The complainant has paid Rs. 2,100/- for internet connection. This fact has been proved on production of receipt. The complainant had been receiving monthly bills from the opposite party without providing any connection. This is definitely a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The opposite party has no right in law to ask payment of bill amount without giving any service to the consumer / customer. The complainant is right in asking refund of the amount paid by him. The bills sent by the opposite party have no basis at all. The complainant has to ignore them. The monthly bills sent by the opposite party are not binding on the complainant. The complainant herein is a ‘consumer’ under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said Act being a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of consumers the interest of complainant shall have to be protected by passing orders in his favour. In the result I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
5. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 2,100/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
6. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party.
7. The opposite party is directed to send the amount by way of D.D. / Cheque directly to the complainant with intimation to this forum.
8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.
9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2011.
Order accordingly,
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings.
MEMBER MEMBER
