BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 18/04/2012
Date of Order : 30/10/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 240/2012
Between
A.K. Venugopalan, | :: | Complainant |
Padma Bhavan, Chittoor Road, Ayyappankavu, Kochi – 682 018. |
| (Party-in-person) |
And
The Branch Head, Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd., | :: | Opposite Party |
3rd Floor, Subhash Building, Behind HDFC Bank, Palarivattom, Kochi – 682 025. |
| (By Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil Associates Advocates, H.B. 48, Panampilly Nagar, Cochin - 36) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows :-
The complainant took a limited broadband connection on a monthly rent of Rs. 375/- on 02-09-2011 and paid Rs. 1,000/- towards advance. After 2 weeks on 15-09-2011, the complainant converted the connection into another special offer of 12+3 = 15 months unlimited scheme with effect from 01-10-2011 and paid the whole amount separately. At the time of conversion, the complainant was told that charges for the month of September 2011 would be deducted from the advance amount and the balance to the tune of Rs. 650/- would be refunded. Despite repeated reminders, the opposite party failed to refund the money. So, the complainant is before us claiming a total amount of Rs. 1,970/- under various heads.
2. The version of the opposite party :-
The complainant had availed an internet connection with limited plan for a fixed monthly rent of Rs. 375/- on 05-09-2011. At the initial use of the Internet, the complainant found that he was using in excess of his permitted limit as per Rs. 375/- per month. Accordingly, the complainant was asked to pay for his excess usage of Rs. 372.81/-. Thereafter, the complainant changed his connection to another scheme, as per the new scheme, he needed to pay only Rs. 399/- plus tax per month. In the course of payment, the complainant paid an excess amount of Rs. 615/- which would be adjusted in the next annual subscription renewal which is due on 01-01-2013. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext. B1 was marked. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the counsel for the opposite party.
4. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 1,970/- from the opposite party?
5. Admittedly, an excess amount of Rs. 615/- is with the opposite party with effect from 02-09-2011 evident from Ext. A3 provisional receipt. According to the complainant, in spite of repeated requests, the opposite party failed to refund the amount. The opposite party maintains that the amount would be adjusted in the next annual subscription renewal which is due on 01-01-2013 only. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party again failed to respond to Ext. A1 and A2 series (2 Nos.) which had been sent by the complainant demanding refund of the amount. Law in the assertion of itself and enforcement of the same is and has to be blind that is to say not having to take sides with either the powerful or the less powerful here is an instance where an ordinary consumer has been seemingly taken up by one bigger than himself. Balances seem to shift but not before law and neither before this Forum. Matters ought to be set right. In this instance, the above conduct of the opposite party amounts not only to deficiency in service, but also to unfair trade practice. Since, what is in debate is not the quantum of money involved, but that the corridors of justice be kept open we award an exemplary costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
6. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :-
The opposite party shall refund Rs. 615/- with 12% interest p.a. from 02-09-2011 till realisation.
The opposite party shall also pay a sum of rs. 1,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.
The 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 30th day of October 2012
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President. Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the demand notice dt. 22-02-2012 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 11-12-2011 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the provisional receipt dt. 02-09-2011 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 | :: | Copy of the resolution passed dt. 01-09-2006 |
Depositions :- |
|
|
DW1 | :: | Alex Jose Paikada – witness of the op.pty |
=========
