JUDGEMENT By Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President. This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant G. Chanappa S/o. Gundappa against the Respondent TATA TELE SERVICES LIMITED. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is a Businessman and resident of Raichur. He took telephone/cell connection from the Respondent by paying deposit of Rs. 5,999/- through a cheque bearing No. 029795 dt. 06-06-2005. During that period he paid all the regular bills to the Respondent. Thereafter the complainant applied for cancellation of telephone/cell connection on 21-08-2007 and requested for refund of initial deposit Rs. 5,999/- on several occasions over telephone to the Respondent and at last he issued a legal notice dt. 21-05-2008 for non-refund of the above said deposited amount. But the Respondent neither refunded deposited amount nor replied to his notice till today. That the complainant applied for dis-connection of telephone dt. 21-08-07 by paying all the telephone cell bills and he is not using the telephone cell till today. However the Respondent has illegally demanded a sum of Rs. 709/- through a notice dt. 08-05-2008 instead of refunding the deposited amount Rs. 5,999/-. The non-refund of the said deposited amount and illegally retaining the same for more than one year without any reasons, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant is entitled to claim the interest on the said amount at 12% p.a. and compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. In-pursuance of service of notice of the complainant, Respondent has not appeared before this Forum and remained absent when called out. So the Respondent Company has been placed Ex-parte. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and got marked (4) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. The Respondent is Ex-parte. 4. Heard the arguments of counsel for complainant Respondent are Ex-parte. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service by the Respondent in not refunding the telephone deposited amount, as alleged?. 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?. 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is the case of the complainant that he took telephone/cell connection from Respondent by depositing Initial deposit of Rs. 5,999/- through cheque bearing No. 029795 dt. 06-06-05. During the period of its use he has paid the regular bills upto date to the Respondent. Thereafter he applied for cancellation of telephone/cell connection on 21-08-07 and requested for refund of initial deposit amount of Rs. 5,999/- on several occasion over telephone. The Respondent did not respond but on the contrary the Respondent issued Legal notice dt. 08-05-08 to the complainant demanding a sum of Rs. 709/- towards outstanding dues, through he has paid regular bills upto date. The non-refund of deposited amount and illegally retaining the same for more than one year without any reasons amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. So the complainant replied to the legal notice of Respondent through his counsel on 21-05-08 clarifying that he has applied for the cancellation of the telephone-cell connection on 21-08-07 and since from that date he has not used the telephone-cell service and so the question of payment of Rs. 709/- does not arise and that the Respondent has to refund the initial deposit amount of Rs. 5,999/-. As the Respondent failed to respond to the same, he has filed this complaint. 7. The complainant has reiterated the same in his affidavit-evidence and he has produced (4) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. Ex.P-1 is the xerox copy of Cancellation Form of Tata Tele Services Limited dt. 21-08-07 for cancellation of the Telephone/Cell No. 9243234075. Ex.P-2 is the Xerox copy of Legal notice dt. 08-05-08 issued by the Respondent to the complainant G. Channappa. In this legal notice the Account number shown as 203517626 tallies with the account number mentioned in Ex.P-1. Ex.P-3 is the office copy of Reply to Legal Notice of Respondent got issued by the complainant on 21-05-08. Ex.P-3(1) is the postal acknowledgement. Ex.P-4 is the Xerox copy of extract of cheques leaves account of Pragathi Gramina Bank Raichur, interalia showing the use of cheque for Rs. 5,999/- in the name of Respondent issued by the complainant. 8. The complainant, of course, has not produced Receipt or any document showing the payment of initial deposit of Rs. 5,999/- made by him to the Respondent. But in the reply notice at Ex.P-3 dt. 21-05-08 the complainant has specifically stated that he has paid the initial deposit of Rs. 5,999/- through cheque bearing No. 029795 dt. 06-06-05 with regard to his phone (cell) No. 9243234075. This reply notice sent through RPAD has been served on the Respondent vide postal acknowledgement at Ex.P-3(1). The Respondent has not replied to this Reply notice disputing or denying the payment of Initial deposit of Rs. 5,999/- by the complainant. More-over the Cheque Leaves Account produced at Ex.P-4 shows that the complainant has maintained a record of issuance of cheque leaves pertaining to his account with Tungabhadra Gramina Bank/ Pragathi Gramina Bank. It shows issuance of cheque bearing No. 029795 for Rs. 5,999/- to the Respondent-Tata Indicom. As stated supra the Respondent has not replied or disputed regarding the payment of initial deposit of Rs. 5,999/- as detailed in the reply notice at Ex.P-3. Further-more, the Respondent has remained absent in-spite of service of notice issued to this Forum and has been placed Ex-parte. So in the absence of any defence by the Respondent, we do not find any reason to dis-believe or discard the cheque leaves account at Ex.P-4 showing the issuance of cheque for Rs. 5,999/- in favour of the Tata Indicom. Therefore from perusal of Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-4 it can be said without any hesitation that the complainant has made the payment of initial deposit of Rs. 5,999/- while taking telephone-cell connection. 9. It is the further case of the complainant that he stopped the use of telephone/cell connection from 21-08-07 and requested for stopping the telephone connection vide Ex.P-1 and it is also his case that from 21-08-07 he has not used the said phone. However the Respondent issued legal notice vide Ex.P-2 demanding the complainant to pay outstanding dues of Rs. 709/-. As stated earlier in the Reply notice at Ex.P-3 the complainant has specifically stated that he has stopped the use of cell phone from 21-08-07. In the Reply notice Ex.P-2 the Respondent has demanded the outstanding dues of Rs. 709/- towards use of the phone, but this Ex.P-2 does not show specifically as to for/from which period. Even the Respondent has not retorted the contents of reply notice issued by the complainant vide Ex.P-3 which was served on him vide postal acknowledgement at Ex.P-3(1). Further-more the Respondent has remained absent and placed Ex-parte. The conduct of the Respondent even in not appearing and contesting the case against him in-spite of service of notice issued by this Forum, goes to show that the Respondent has no defence to challenge or to rebut the claim of the complainant. If the complainant is due for outstanding dues of Rs. 709/-, then in the natural course, the Respondent could have shown the period for which this dues pertains or even he could have specifically replied after the receipt of Reply notice from the complainant vide Ex.P-3 or even he could have contested the case of the complainant by putting his appearance before this Forum. So if all these factors are taken into account it negatives the claim of Rs. 709/- made by the Respondent vide Ex.P-2 especially when the complainant retorted the same by his reply notice at Ex.P-3, besides claiming for refund of initial deposit amount. Hence for all these reasons we hold that the Respondent has failed to refund Initial deposit of Rs. 5,999/- as claimed by the complainant in-spite of demands made by him. This in-turn amounts to deficiency in service by the Respondent as rightly argued by the LC for the complainant. Hence we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency of service by the Respondent and so Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 10. The complainant has sought for refund of Initial deposit amount of Rs. 5,999/- with interest at 12% p.a from the date of payment till realization and has also sought for Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation. So far as the refund of Initial deposit of Rs. 5,999/- is concerned, in-view of our finding and discussion on Point No-1, the complainant is entitled for the same. In so far as the claim of the complainant for awarding interest at 12% on the Initial deposit and claiming compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is concerned, it appears that the complainant is blowing both Hot & Cold at the same time. Admittedly the complainant has not produced any scrap of evidence to show the cancellation of his cell service vide Ex.P-1 having been served on the Respondent. As discussed in Point No-1, the stoppage of service of cell by the complainant has been given to the knowledge of the Respondent through Reply notice vide Ex.P-3 dt. 21-05-08, which has been served vide postal acknowledgement at Ex.P-3(1). Under these circumstances and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it just and proper to award a global compensation of Rs. 2,500/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondent shall refund the initial deposit amount of Rs. 5,999/- along with global compensation of Rs. 2,500/- to the complainant. The Respondent shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 19-01-09.) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
