Date of Filing:18.01.2008<br /> Date of Order:09.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 182 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> S. Chokalingam,<br /> S/o C. Sundaram,<br /> Managing Director,<br /> M/s Rajendra Mills Ltd.,<br /> No.71, II Floor, Millers Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 002. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. The General Manager,<br /> M/s Reliance Communication Services,<br /> A division of Reliance Communication<br /> Infrastructure Ltd., Thane Belapur Road,<br /> Kopar Khairane, Navi Mumbai-400 710.<br /> <br /> 2. The Manager-Customer Care,<br /> M/s Reliance Infocom,<br /> 32/1&2, II Floor, Crescent Towers, <br /> Bangalore-560 001. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. <br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant had subscribed for a mobile telephone connection which was offered along with a mobile handset by the opposite party No.1. The complainant had paid the necessary deposit for obtaining the mobile instrument and the connection. Since he was not satisfied with the services provided by the opposite party No.1 he requested for termination of the services as on 22/4/2006 and also returned the mobile handset on the same day to the opposite party No.2 who acknowledged the same and also took back the mobile handset. At the time of the termination of the service the opposite party No.1 was due a sum of Rs.8,286.73 towards the refund of the deposit paid by the complainant as is evident from the service termination acknowledgment form and the complainant was due a sum of Rs.440/- which amount was collected from the complainant at the time of termination of the service. The complainant after waiting for a considerable amount of time for the refund of the said amount got issued a notice on 13/4/2007 to the opposite party No.2 demanding for the refund of the amount due to him. After lapse of more than two years from the date of termination of the service sent a cheque for Rs.8286.73 towards refund of the deposit amount which was due to the complainant. To the utter surprise he received a notice on 10/9/2007 from the District Legal Services Authority, Bangalore Urban for appearing before it in the pre-litigation case No.93737 of 2007 instituted by the opposite party No.1 in respect of the very same connection claiming sum of Rs. 9590.27 as due from the complainant out of which the outstanding bill amount allegedly was Rs.8657.40. The complainant got issued legal notice on 22/10/2007 to the opposite parties for the deficiency in service and also calling upon them to restrain themselves from making unjust claims. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared through advocate and filed defence version stating that, the complainant had submitted the termination request on 22/4/2005 and returned the handset to the official of the opposite party and due acknowledgement was given for the same. After termination the complainant was entitled for refund of Rs. 8286.73. The person who had received the termination request from the complainant had misplaced the documents and hence, the opposite parties were not aware of the termination request given by the complainant and hence, refund was not processed. It is only after 13/4/2007, when the complainant had complained about non-receipt of the refund amount, they came to know about the issue and immediately they processed for refund of Rs.8286.73. Due to negligence of the agency staff, who had left the organization in a short period, the termination request given by the complainant, did not came to the knowledge of the opposite parties. The alleged notice sent by Legal Service Authority was caused for settlement and the contents of the letter clearly depict the said intention. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties nor there is any unfair and dishonest trade practices causing embarrassment, harassment and mental agony to the complainant. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments heard. <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:- <br /> 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service <br /> on the part of the opposite parties? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. It is an admitted case that the complainant is a subscriber for mobile telephone connection. The service was terminated on the request. The opposite party was due in a sum of Rs. 8,286/- towards the refund of deposit paid by the complainant. This fact is admitted by the opposite party. The opposite party in its defence version admitted that the complainant had submitted termination request on 22/4/2005 and had returned the handset to the opposite party. It is also admitted that the complainant was entitled for refund of Rs.8,286/-. It is also admitted in the written argument of the opposite party due to negligence of agency staff, the termination request given by the complainant did not come to the knowledge of the opposite party. The opposite party refunded Rs.8,286/- after two years of the termination of service. This is a clear case of deficiency on the opposite party. Soon after termination of service the opposite party could have refunded the amount after deposit to the complainant within a reasonable period of one or two week. But in this case admittedly the opposite party has taken two years time to refund the deposit. Therefore, the amount of the complainant was held up with the opposite party. Opposite party could have given interest on the said deposit amount. But the opposite party has not paid interest on the deposit amount for nearly two years. The complainant cannot be asked to suffer without his fault. The prayer of the complainant that opposite party shall be directed to pay interest on Rs.8,286/- for two years is very fair, just and proper. The opposite party has referred the matter to District Legal Services Authority, Bangalore. The learned advocate for the opposite party submitted that the matter taken to District Legal Services Authority was closed. No pre-litigation is pending before the Legal Services Authority. Therefore, the first prayer of the complainant also complied with. The complainant has claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for causing embarrassment, harassment, mental agony etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards costs. Claiming such a high amount as compensation in this case is not called for. It is not a case to grant such a hefty, unjust and unfair compensation to the complainant. There are no basis or grounds to grant or award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as claimed by the complainant. However, the claim of the complainant for grant of interest on Rs.8,826/- for two years is quite just, fair and reasonable. Therefore, the opposite party can be ordered to pay interest at 18% p.a on Rs.8,826/- from 8/5/2005 to 12/5/2007 (for two years). The opposite party can also be directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs of present proceedings. The opposite party being a very big company it should see that services are provided to consumers promptly without giving any scope to the consumers to file complaints. Consumer Protection Act is enacted to provide better service to the consumers. In this case, since there was a delay in processing to refund the amount, naturally the opposite party shall be directed to pay the interest on the deposit amount. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay interest on Rs.8,286/- from 8/5/2005 to 12/5/2007 at 18% p.a. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the present proceeding to the complainant. The request of the complainant for grant of compensation is rejected. The opposite party is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order. The cheque or DD for interest amount and costs as ordered above be sent directly to the complainant with intimation to this Forum.<br /> <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2008.<br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />