PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 29th day of June 2012
Filed on :03/11/2010
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 583/2010
Between
Manoj Babu, 461/A, : Complainant
Manoj Bhavan, (By Adv. V.S. Sreejith,
Thripunithura P.O., M/s. Lawyers United, 36/1912 A,
Kochi. Sebastian road, Kaloor, Kochi-17)
And
TATA Tele services Ltd., : Opposite party
SL Plaza, Palarivattom, (By Adv. Aswin Gopakumar,)
Kochi-682 025.,
rep. by its Branch Manager.
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a subscriber for internet connection with opposite party company. The opposite party offered data transfer speed of 3 MBPS. But he could actually avail data transfer of much lower speed. Complainant lodged a written requisition to maintain a credit limit of Rs. 1,500/-. Later, connection broke down on 14-05-2010 on the ground of non payment of a pending bill and he was informed that connection could be restored only on payment of Rs. 4,000/-. Later a fresh bill styled as Duplicate Bill to the tune of Rs. 4,038/- was served through e-mail. Conciliation was tried to settle the matter but it ultimately failed. Hence complainant is seeking various reliefs in this complaint.
2. The version is filed by the opposite party denying the allegations. Commutative credit limit of complainant was not fixed at Rs. 1,500/-. The allegation that the data transfer speed became low is incorrect. The connection was discontinued because of non-payment of dues. The total amount due from the complainant is Rs. 4,117/-. Nodal officer dismissed the allegations as unfounded. Since
the allegations are baseless, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
3. Complainant has no oral evidence. Ext. A1 to A4 marked. No oral evidence to opposite party also. Exts. B1 to B3 marked. Learned counsel on both sides were heard.
4. The following points deserve our attention.
i. Whether there was drop in data transfer speed?
ii. What was the credit limit for the complainant?
iii. What are reliefs, if any
5. Points Nos. i, ii & iii. This complaint raises firstly allegation regarding drop in the speed of data transfer. Unfortunately he has failed to produce any evidence to establish that point. Secondly he makes the complaint that his connection was disconnected on the ground of non-payment of charges. Several exchanges of communications have been made between the parties. Still both parties stick on to their respective positions. In this regard Ext. A2 is of some relevance where it is in indicated that the nodal officer had looked into the complainant’s grievances and he had reiterated the position of the company that connection could be restored only if the dues were paid. The stand taken by the company cannot be brushed aside as such.
6. In that view of the matter we cannot grant any substantial relief to the complainant.
Accordingly the complaint is disposed of with the following observation:
The complainant is liable to pay the dues as per the bills that is issued to him from time to time. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, opposite party shall write off the liability out standing on the part of the complainant.
The proceedings in the complaint stands closed with the above observation.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of June 2012.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of letter dt. 01-02-2010
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 12-06-2010
A3 : Copy of duplicate bill
A4 : Copy of lawyer notice
dt. 01-08-2010
Opposite party’s Exhibits :
Ext. B1 : Copy of customer details
B2 : Duplicate bill 15-04-2010
B3 : Duplicate bill 15-06-2010
