By Smt. Padmini sudheesh, President<br /> <br /> The facts of the case of petitioner is as follows:<br /> <br /> On 7/7/05 the complainant had taken phone connection from the respondents. Before taking the connection she had enquired to the 2nd respondent about the availability of phone service to other mobile and land phone connections. The 2nd respondent had informed the complainant the availability and the connection is taken after deposit of Rs.1000/- as security. Petitioner’s husband has a Reliance mobile connection and she had taken the TATA connection after assuring the service availability to Reliance connection also. When she called to the husband’s mobile phone, it was found that the service is not available to Reliance phones. After suppressing this fact the respondents given connection to the petitioner. So on 8/7/05 itself she had intimated the matter and tried to return the phone. But it was not accepted and informed that the service to her phone will be disconnected by their men later and she returned with the equipment. On 8/7/05 itself she had taken a new Reliance phone connection. Only on 19/8/05 the phone was taken back by the respondents. The security amount is not returned. But a bill was received claiming Rs.1121/-. She is not liable to pay the amount. There is deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. The counter of 1st respondent in brief is that on 8/7/05 the complainant never made any complaint regarding the connection to this respondent. The allegation that on 19/8/05 the complainant surrendered the instrument and promised to repay the security etc. are baseless. This respondent had never got any cancellation letter till they issued the telephone bill. Once the telephone is activated the customer is duty bound to pay the activation charge and the monthly rent. The complainant is liable to pay amount of Rs.1121/- including the activation charge of Rs.800/- and monthly rent of Rs.321/-. When the deposit is adjusted towards the dues even then the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.121/-. As per the rules the customer is duty bound to return the instrument along with the cancellation letter. The complainant used the telephone until it was suspended. Hence dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The counter of 2nd respondent contains the contentions of 1st respondent.<br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are<br /> 1) Whether the complainant is entitled for the deposited amount and interest ?<br /> 2) Whether there is deficiency in service ?<br /> 3) Reliefs and costs ?<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P4 and Exhibit R1.<br /> <br /> 6. Point No.1 The complainant had deposited Rs.1000/- as security on 7/7/05 and phone connection had taken. Due to the non-availability of the phone service to the Reliance connection she has optioned to give up the connection and demanded the security deposit. The respondent contended that once the telephone is activated the customer is duty bound to pay the activation charges and monthly rent. The bill is issued for the period of 13/8/05 to 12/9/05. In that the usage charge is shown as zero. Only the rent and other charges are shown. Nothing is there to indicate activation charge. In the counter of both they stated that if the deposit is adjusted towards the dues, the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.121/-. If the activation charge is not refundable, how they can adjust it towards the dues. It is like refund. Another aspect is concerning the date. On 7/7/05 she has got connection. On 8/7/05 itself she had tried to return the equipment. But they did not accept. On the very same day she had taken Reliance connection. Respondents have not denied it. Keeping two connections simultaneously is not necessary concerning the complainant. She is compelled to keep the TATA connection in her house due to the latches of the respondents. Hence she is not liable to pay the exhibit P3 bill amount. Even if that relief is not sought by the complainant the Forum has ample power to grant a relief which is not asked.<br /> <br /> 7. Point No.2 Only because of the deficiency in service of the respondents the complainant has to face a bill of Rs.1121/-. Immediately after finding the non service to Reliance connection she had acted upon. She had taken the connection only after enquiring about the details. The respondents suppressed some facts which are material to the petitioner. So the respondents are responsible for deficiency in service also. <br /> <br /> 8. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to return the security deposit of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% per moth from the date of deposit till today and 6% till realization . Respondents are further directed to pay Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only)- as compensation and Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) towards cost. Comply the order within one month. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 31st day of July2008. <br /> <br />