BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 92/2014 filed on 06/03/2014
Dated: 30..06..2014
Complainant:
Jivahar Gabriel, Puthen Veedu, Vilavoorkonam, Kizhakinkara, Karode, Vilappilsala-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 573.
(Party in person)
Opposite party:
Tata Docomo, Three Star Building, Vellayambalam, Sasthamangalam Road, Thiruvananthapuram.
This C.C having been heard on 16..06..2014, the Forum on 30..06..2014 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:
Case of the complainant is that he had taken a postpaid connection from Tata Docomo by giving a refundable deposit of Rs. 850/-. Since there is no network coverage at his native place he registered a complaint with the opposite party, but no action was taken on this. So by using the mobile number portability he transferred his connection to Vodafone. When he moved to Vodafone, his outstanding payment due to the opposite party was Rs. 514/-. Sales staff of the opposite party assured him that this amount will be adjusted against the refundable deposit and the balance will be paid to him within 45 days. But nothing happened and all on a sudden Vodafone suspended his service stating that Rs. 514/- is due to Docomo. So in order to restore the service he was forced to pay Rs. 514/- and settled the account. So he claims for refund of Rs. 850/- which is with the opposite party as his refundable deposit.
2. Though notice was sent from this Forum to the opposite party, was accepted, they never appeared or filed any version or contested the matter. So we proceeded exparte against them.
3. Points raised:
(i) Whether the allegation of deficiency and unfair trade practice of the opposite party proved?
(ii) Reliefs and compensation?
4. Points (i) & (ii): Complainant filed affidavit along with 2 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 and P2. Ext. P1 is the receipt issued by the opposite party showing the deposit amount as Rs. 850/- and Ext. P2 is the receipt for Rs. 514/- which he was forced to pay. It is crystal clear that withholding the refundable deposit amounts to unfair trade practice and when he had Rs. 850/- in his credit, complainant herein was forced to remit Rs. 514/- again which clearly shows the latches in co-ordination of the opposite party for which the poor consumer is never to be penalized. The complainant is eligible for refund of Rs. 850/-.
In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 850/- within a period of one month of receipt of this order. If the order is not complied within this period, opposite party is liable to pay 9% interest on this amount till the date of realization. No order on cost and compensation.
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, this the 30th day of June, 2014.
Sd/- LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/- G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/- R. SATHI : MEMBER
Ad
C.C.No: 92/2014
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : N I L
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Invoice No.CR20012-13/5590-458966 dated 10..01..2013
P2 : Receipt No.55454910 dated 05..07..2013
III. Opposite party’s witness : N I L
IV. Opposite party’s documents : N I L
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Ad.
