G.Yadhunadhan, President.                                                      

 

            The case of the complainant is that complainant had availed services from Tata Telecom Service, believing their Scheme is the better service than of any other connection. Opposite party had assured that if the complainant was not happy with their service he would get a refund and the mobile set will be taken back by them. Opposite party misrepresented that local calls will not be charged. But in fact telephone calls made at the beginning of the month were charged. Opposite party did not intimate the complainant that the international roaming facility is not operational and not to use it. Tata Indicom never informed to the complainant that the credit facility is up to Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred) but they waited to reach Rs.2800/- to disconnect the telephone and the trouble complainant had to receive an appropriate answer regarding this from their office. On 25.02.2006 the telephone was disconnected. Complainant had approached the opposite party and demanded the bill. Only at that time opposite party realized that bill was not generated but has been disconnected because he has exceeded the limit. Due to this complainant was not in a position to pay the bill so they convinced the complainant and re connected on 25.02.2006, after two days again disconnected the phone. The bill in dispute is for the period from 25.01.2006 to 24.02.2006 as Tata Indicom charged Rs 1173 for the internet usage for 4 units. Complainant paid Rs.1200/- on 04.03.2006. Actually complainant was not at all using the internet.   With the absence of telephone complainant had paid to intimate about the burglary occurred in complainant house on 16.03.05 to the police station and relatives. In this circumstances complainant is seeking compensation against the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.5, 00,000/-(five lakhs)

 

            Opposite party 1 & 3 notice served and appeared. Version also filed. Opposite party No.2 after serving notice called absent and set exparte. According to the opposite parties transactions is purely for commercial purpose and this forum has no jurisdiction upon the subject matter of the complainant. Second opposite party is one of  the franchisees of the first opposite party at Kozhikode. The complainant was assigned subscriber Nos. 5538840 and 9249428840 and her connection was also activated. Franchisees of the first opposite party usually employ sales executives for marketing. The sales executives would explain the services offered by the first OP and various schemes offered by it to the customers. Pamphlets regarding the scheme also furnished to intending customers by the sales executives.   They are advertised in leading dailies as well as in visual media.   It is  the customer alone to decide whether he or she should avail the service or not.  Facts being so the complainant can not be heard to contend   that she was lured by the sales personal of the second OP to avail the telephone connection provided by the first opposite party. While availing the telephone connection provided by the first OP the complainant had opted for the combo scheme.   Under the combo scheme the customer need not pay any amount as a security. The customer can opt for the free walky connection under the combo scheme where he has to purchase the mobile on an outright price. Under the combo scheme only calls made from the walky scheme to mobile phones are not charged for a period of one year. Short messages whether local, national or international applications SMS are charged under the combo scheme. That apart under the combo scheme the customer crosses the credit limit to outgoing calls would be barred unless the customer pays the entire bill or making interim payment or pay extra deposit to increase their credit limit. The sales executive of the second OP who had visited the complainant had explained all those facts. The complainant was well aware of the same at the time of availing the telephone connection. By 16.02.2006 the complainant had made calls in excess of the credit limit granted to her.   As such short messages were sent to the complainant on 16.02.2006, 17.02.06, 21.02.06, 22.02.06 and 23.02.06. Intimating her that she had exceeded the credit limit further directing her to make interim payment to avoid barring of outgoing facility. In spite of those reminders the complainant did not make any payment and as such the outgoing facilities of telephone were barred on 24.02.06.  Later on by the second week of March 2006 complainant had made calls in excess of her credit limit. Short messages were sent to the complainant on 14.03.06, 17.03.06 and 20.03.06 to remind her to make interim payment, which   she neglected to comply with.   As such outgoing facility of the complainant telephone connection was barred on 22.03.06.  The fact is that the service provided   by them to the complainant were not deficient, no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.

             The points for consideration whether the complaint is maintainable?( 2) whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation, if so what is the relief and cost?

            The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext A1 & A2 were marked on complainant side. Opposite parties had not produced any document or adduced any oral evidence. As per complaint itself, it is commercial in nature complainant is a proprietor of the devine generator   spare and service, no where in the complaint stated that it is a personal use for livelihood.   Moreover complainant availed connection of opposite party after convincing and agreed all the conditions stipulated by the opposite party. In Para 4 of the deposition while cross examined by the opposite party complainant herself stated that the connection availed is for her business purpose. No documents produced by the complainant except letter to show that the transaction is a personal one. Since the complainant herself admitted at the time of cross examination that the connection availed for the purpose of commercial, the forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 

            Therefore we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with no cost.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the14th day of July 2010.

Date of filing : 30.03.2006

 

             SD/- PRESIDENT                     SD/- MEMBER                      SD/- MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

 

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1.Photo of copy of letter dtd 24.03.06(professional courier receipt. No0451271  

     dt.24.3.06)

A2.Photo copy of letter dtd. 23.03.06 (professional Courier receipt No.0447996        

    dtd.23.03.06)

Documents exhibited for the opposite parties.

 Nil

 

Witness examined for the complainant.

PW1. Fernadaz Valarie ( Complainant)

 

Witness examined for the opposite party:

 None

 

                                                                                                    Sd/- President.

 

      //True copy//

 

(Forwarded /By Order)

 

 

SENIOR  SUPERINTENDENT