PRESENT: SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT    

                                SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER

Thursday, 3^rd July 2008

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  35 / 2008

P. Champalal, S/o Phool Chand C. Shaw,

D.No. 18/433, B.K.M Street, Kadapa City.                                  ….. Complainant.

Vs.

1) The General manager, Reliance Info. Co. Service, Bombay.

2) Reliance Info Co. Services, Branch Manager,

    DNR Towners, Near Koti Reddy Circle, Kadapa.                          ….. Respondent

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 1-7-2008 in the presence of Sri T. Ramalingeswara Raju, Advocate for complainant and Sri C. Siva Prasad Reddy, Advocate for respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President),

1.                Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2.                The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:-  The complainant applied for phone connection of the opposite parties on 3-1-2003 b y paying Rs. 3,000/- to the opposite party No. 2 in addition to issuing three cheques for  Rs. 1,800/- each.  The opposite parties received Rs. 6,600/- from the complainant towards phone connection.  Even after completion of four years time the opposite parties could not provide phone connection in spite of several demands.  The opposite party No. 2 was postponing the repayment of amount also.  The complainant sent a letter dt. 9-3-2007 demanding for  refund of Rs. 6,600/- with interest @ 24% p.a.  But there was no reply.  However, a legal notice was issued on 9-5-2007 to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 6,600/- with interest @ 24% p.a. besides compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.  Even then there was no reply.  Hence, the complaint was filed in view of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties to pay Rs. 6,600/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from 3-1-2003 till payment and Rs. 20,000/- towards damages and costs. 

3.                The opposite parties filed a counter denying the complaint allegations.  The complaint was bared by limitation under section 24 A of the C.P. Act.  The complainant ought to have filed the original receipt, acknowledgment but it was not filed.  The complaint was clear that the complainant took four years time to issue legal notice on 9-5-2007.  There was much delay in filing the complaint.  There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  There was no cause of action to entertain the complaint.   Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

i.                   Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

ii.                 Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

iii.              To what relief?

5.                On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A4 were marked.  The complainant filed written arguments also.  No documents were filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

6.                Point Nos. 1 & 2.  The case of the complainant is he paid Rs. 3,000/- on 3-1-2003 to the opposite party No. 2 for phone connection in addition to issuing 3 post dated cheques each for Rs. 1,800/-.  The complainant filed Ex.A1 a Xerox copy of receipt cum acknowledgment, dt. 01-3-2003.  But in the complaint and in the notice the date was shown as 3-1-2003 and the cheques were 3 only issued to opposite party No. 2 for Rs. 1,800/- each.  The complaint was silent when the two post dated cheques have been encashed by the opposite party No. 2 for Rs. 6,600/- in total.  The complainant was silent on that fact also.  The complaint was silent with regard to return of other post dated cheques.  After lapse of 4 years the complainant wrote a letter on  9-3-2007 to opposite party No. 1 for refund of Rs. 3,000/- only with interest @ 24% p.a.    The Xerox copy of letter was Ex. A2.  Again on 9-5-2007 a legal notice was issued to opposite party No. 1 for refund of Rs. 6,600/- with interest @ 24% p.a.  The office copy of the notice was Ex. A3.   The postal acknowledgement was Ex. A4.  Under Section 24 A of C.P. Act the limitation period was 2 years from the date of cause of action.  In the cause of action paragraph of the complaint it was noted that the cause of action arose when the complainant applied for phone connection by paying an amount of Rs. 3,000/- and 3 cheques for Rs. 1,800/- each to the opposite parties.  As discussed earlier there was no mention of the date of withdrawal of the amount from the bank on presenting the cheques by opposite parties.  In the complaint and notice date was shown as 3-1-2003 and the numbers of postdated cheques were 3.   There was much discrepancy in between the complaint and the Ex. A1 with regard to the post dated cheques and also the date. In Ex. A1 the date was shown as 1-3-2003 and the number of post dated cheques were 12.  The forum took an objection before registering of the complaint with regard to question of limitation and the same was decided by the Hon’ble forum Member Full Additional Incharge of the President on 12-3-2008.  Therefore, the complaint was registered on 15-3-2008.  In these circumstances the complaint is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.  There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties because the complaint was vague.  No doubt the complainant might have demanded the opposite parties orally for repayment.  He had not written even a single letter in these 4 years except on 9-3-2007 and 9-5-2007 under Ex. A2 & A3.  In these circumstances the complaint is dismissed without costs.  Hence, the points are answered accordingly. 

7.                Point No. 3.  In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 3^rd July 2008

MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    :       NIL                                            For Respondent :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -   

Ex. A1         X/c of receipt cum acknowledgment, dt. 01-3-2003

Ex. A2         X/c of letter from complainant to R1, dt. 9-3-2007.

Ex. A3         X/c of legal notice from complainant’s advocate to R1, dt. 9-5-07.

Ex. A4         Postal acknowledgement card.

Exhibits marked for Respodnents : -          -- NIL --

MEMBER                                                                                    PRESIDENT.

Copy to :-

1)     Sri T. Ramalingeswara Raju,  Advocate, Kadapa.

2)     Sri C. Siva Prasad Reddy,  Advocate, Kadapa.     

         1) Copy was made ready on     :

2) Copy was dispatched on      :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :        

B.V.P.                                               - - -