Date of Filing:16.09.2008<br /> Date of Order:31.10.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 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: 2030 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Mrs. Bhavana Aggarwal<br /> W/o Bhaskar Shintray<br /> Office at S-2, Richmond Plaza<br /> Richmond Circle <br /> Bangalore 560 025<br /> Represented by her S.P.A Holder<br /> Sri. Ram Mohan. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> The Manager,<br /> Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd.,<br /> Reliance Communications, No.121 <br /> II Floor, “The Estate” (Next to Municipal Centre)<br /> Dickenson Road, Bangalore 560 025 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. <br /> The facts of the case are that complainant is a customer of the opposite party. She had got installed Reliance Network in July 2006. She has deposited Rs. 3,750/- with the opposite party. She noticed fault in the machine and informed the same to the opposite party. In April 2008 opposite party’s representative came to the office of complainant and changed the battery which was also faulty one. The complainant delivered the machine back to opposite party office on 14.05.2008. She has also paid amount due to the opposite party till 14.05.2008 which amounted to Rs. 606/- through receipt. To the surprise of complainant she received two bills for Rs. 589/- and Rs. 639/-. Complainant sent a legal notice on 31.07.2008. Copy of legal notice is produced. Even after notice no action was taken to refund the deposit. The complainant received another bill dated 11.08.2007 for Rs. 276/-. Even after surrendering machine the opposite party was sending bills repeatedly. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence, complainant has forced to file this complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party through RPAD. Notice was served. But, inspite of service of notice nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party. The opposite party has not even sent defence version by post. Opposite party was placed ex-parte. <br /> 3. Perused the complaint, documents and heard arguments of Kum. Sharmila, learned Advocate for the complainant and the matter is posted for orders.<br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> “Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?”<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. The complainant has produced service termination request form/ handset return form of opposite party i.e. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. This form is dated 14.05.2008. As per this termination request form the opposite party representative had received the instrument on 14.05.2008. The complainant has produced bill for Rs. 589/- and another bill for Rs. 639/-. This bill is for a period from 11.06.2008 to 10.07.2008 and the earlier bill was for a period from 11.05.2008 to 10.06.2008. The complainant has produced receipt for Rs. 606/- dated 14.05.2008. As per this receipt the complainant has cleared the bill up to 14.05.2008, the date of surrender of telephone instrument. When the instrument was surrendered on 14.05.2008 how can the opposite party send the bills after 14.05.2008. The bills sent by the opposite party to the complainant are illegal. This goes to show the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party had sent three bills to the complainant and all these three bills are for the period after the surrender of instrument to the opposite party under handset return form/ termination request form. Therefore, the three bills sent by the opposite party to the complainant are without any authority of law. Thus, bills are illegal and cannot be enforced in law. Complainant had not made use of the telephone facility after 14.05.2008. Therefore, question of payment of bills sent by the opposite party does not arise. The complainant has stated in his complaint that she has deposited Rs. 3,750/- with the opposite party before taking telephone connection. Since, complainant has surrendered the instrument and she has closed the account by paying Rs. 606/- on 14.05.2008 the complainant is entitled for deposit amount of Rs. 3,750/- from the opposite party. The case made out by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite party has not appeared and contested the matter. It appears that opposite party has no defence to make. That is why opposite party has remained absent. Taking into consideration all the facts and documents produced by the complainant it is clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund deposited amount of Rs. 3,750/- to the complainant within 30 days from the communication of this order. It is declared that complainant is not liable to pay the bills sent by the opposite party dated 11.06.2008, 11.07.2008 and 11.08.2008.<br /> 7. In the event of non-compliance of the order of refund within 30 days as ordered above the said amount carries interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realisation.<br /> 8. The complainant is awarded Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party.<br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />