D.o.F; 21/12/06<br /> D.o.O: 10/11/08<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD<br /> CC.NO.142/06<br /> Dated this, the 10th day of November 2008<br /> PRESENT:<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI : MEMBER<br /> <br /> Abdul Salam,<br /> S/o Abdulrahiman, : Complainant<br /> Afaf Manzil,Mundol,<br /> Chattanchal,Kasaragod.<br /> <br /> 1. The Manager,<br /> A&P Arcade,<br /> Reliance infocom,<br /> Sahodhara Ayyappa Road,Cochin. : Opposite parties<br /> 2. The Manager,<br /> Reliance Web Site, Bindu Arcade,<br /> Kasaragod<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant Abdulsalam filed this complaint against opposite party<br /> No.1 the manager, Reliance Infocom, A&P Arcade and OP.No.2 the manager Reliance Website alleging the following deficiencies in their service.<br /> a)The handset is not supplied within 40 days as assured, and instead of the release order dtd.10/3/03 the handset is not provided and the DD for Rs.3000/- given by the complainant was encashed and out of the 12 cheque leaves each for Rs.1800/- entrusted in advance towards the purchase value of mobile handset in two of them encashed prior to delivery.<br /> b) Handset is supplied only after the issuing notices dtd.10/9/03 and lawyer notice dtd.17/10/03. The release order issued does not contain any details of tariffs and the rate of calls.<br /> C) He was served with a bill for Rs.23,000/- erroneously and for non payment of the said amount STD facility is barred. Later Reliance communications Ltd rectified the mistake and withdraw the bill and restored the STD facility.<br /> <br /> d) The company go on sending bills without disclosing the details and hence lawyer notice was caused. But as demanded in lawyer notice dtd.9/6/05, the reliance communications did not served bill showing the call details. But filed a petition before Legal Service Authority for realizing a sum of Rs.4448/- from Abdulsalam.<br /> e) Even after his request for disconnection, the bill were issued even though there were no service.<br /> As a result of the attitude of opposite parties, complainant suffered mental agony, torture, harassment and hence the complaint praying for an order directing the opposite parties to furnish the details of account of the complainant’s mobile connection from 10/3/2003 to till date and a compensation of Rs.50000/- with a cost of Rs.3000/-<br /> 2. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed their version contending as follows:<br /> a) The forum lacks territorial jurisdiction since the complainant availed the service of opposite parties from Thiruvananthapuram through their selling agent at Punnappala, Thiruvananthapuram. Hence the alleged cause arose at Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> <br /> b) The complaint is barred by limitation since the alleged non supply of handset and the encashment of cheques occurred in 2003.<br /> c) The reliance Communication company has the right to encash the cheques before supplying the handset.<br /> d) As per the terms and conditions agreed and accepted by customer, the company has got a right to disconnect the mobile connection for nonpayment of bill amount. As per the provisions of TRAI, call details and detailed statement will be given only on specific request . The complainant never made such a request and in case of objection in the bill it ought to have raised within 2 days from the date of receipt of bill. But the complainant has not raised any such objection. The opposite parties therefore prays for a dismissal of complaint.<br /> 3. Complainant filed an affidavit in support of his claim reiterating that is stated in the complaint. Exts.A1 to A13 marked on his side. Opposite parties neither filed any affidavit nor tendered any oral evidence. No documents were also brought in evidence. Both sides were heard and the documents perused.<br /> 4 The grievances of the complainant are manifold. Reliance communication delayed the delivery of handset more than 8 months and the encashment of DD and cheques were began prior to delivery of the handset and the handset is delivered only on issuing the lawyer notice. He was served with a bill for Rs.23,000/- without any basis and for non payment of the said bill STD is barred and later withdraw the bill since it found incorrect. The company did not supply the call details as against the bills as demanded in the lawyer notice nor they sent reply to the notice. Instead of supplying call details, legal proceedings were taken to realize a sum of Rs.4448/-. As against the above allegations the contention raised by the opposite parties are not sustainable. The contention that the complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction has no basis. The complaint is with respect to a cellular connection service provider who carries on business through out India including in Kasaragod district. Further the opposite parties are the franchise of the said service provider who carries on their business within the territorial limits of the Forum.<br /> 5. The another contention put forth by the opposite parties is that the complaint is barred by limitation since the encashment of cheque was in 2003 and the complainant is filed in 2006. This contention also has no legs to stand. It is not only against the encashment of cheques before delivery of the handset alone is disputed, but includes other causes like the issuance of bill, and the demand for the detailed bill through lawyer notices. The lawyer notices Ext.A7 dtd.25/1/05 and Ext.A9 dtd.9/6/05 and Ext.A12, the notice issued from Legal Service Authority Kasaragod to complainant dtd.3/12/2006. All this would goes to show that the complaint is filed well within the statutory time limit as provided U/S 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> 6. According to opposite parties, as per their policy of the company and the agreed terms and conditions, they have got the right to encash the cheque before releasing the handset. If there is such a policy that is against the interest of the consumers and has to be discontinued.<br /> 7. Regarding the demand for the detailed bills opposite parties contends that as per the provisions of Telephone Regulatory Authority of India call details would be given only on specific request. But the opposite parties were grossly negligent to sent a reply to the lawyer notice informing the consumer this aspect. The counsel for the opposite parties submitted that it is not possible to sent reply to lawyer notices as the reliance communications Ltd have to deal with crores of subscribers. This stand is an adamant one as the service provider is collecting consideration for their services without any fault. If that be so, no consumer shall be left without redressing his grievance.<br /> 8. There is no explanations forthcoming regarding the barring of STD facility for non payment of Rs.23,000/- in February 2004 alleging that he owes a sum of Rs.23000/- even though there were no such dues.<br /> This would go to prove that the system of the opposite party is not free from errors. Therefore, naturally when the complainant doubts the genuineness of the bill and asked for the call details with respect to the bills issued to him, the service provider should have provided him the call details or at least he ought to have been asked to pay the requisite fee if any required for the details of calls and bill. But the service provider ignored this demand even though claimed through lawyer notices. The non submission of the call details casts serious doubts on the genuineness of the bill issued to the complainant. It is pertinent to note that even after filing this complaint, the opposite parties failed to produce the call details before the Forum to substantiate their case.<br /> Hence we find the following deficiencies on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> a) Unreasonable delay in supplying the handset to the complainant and the realization of the value prior to its supply. <br /> b) The barring of STD facility alleging exorbitant dues when there were no such dues<br /> c) Issuing bills without call details and the non supply of bill details and call details on demand.<br /> d) Initiating legal proceedings to recover Rs.4448/- without convincing the genuineness of the bill issued.<br /> The opposite parties are therefore liable to compensate the complainant for the said deficiencies. The compensation claimed by the complainant is Rs.50,000/- which is highly exorbitant and without any basis.<br /> Therefore the opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- towards the cost to the complainant for the loss hardships and mental agony caused to him.<br /> If the opposite parties have a case that the reliance communications Ltd is liable to satisfy the order for payment and compensation then the opposite parties are at liberty to recover the amount from reliance communication Ltd after payment of the said amount to the complainant. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.<br /> Sd/ Sd/ Sd/<br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Exts:<br /> A1-Copy of bank account <br /> A2-dt.29/3/03-copy of release order<br /> A3-16/9/03-copy of letter of the complainant<br /> A4-17/10/03-lawyer notice<br /> A5-postal acknowledgment<br /> A6-copy of post card<br /> A7-25/1/05-reply notice<br /> A8&A8(a)-8/5/05-bills<br /> A9-9/6/05-copy of lawyer notice<br /> A10&A11-postal acknowledgments<br /> A12- notice from Lok Adhalath A13-<br /> A13-Advertisement notice <br /> Sd/ Sd/ Sd/<br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> eva/<br /> /Forwarded by Order/<br /> Senior Superintendent <br />