BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 131/2009 Filed on 06.06.2009
Dated : 30.09.2010
Complainant:
Elsie Aly Chacko, W/o Dr. Saji Chacko, Kuzhivelil House, Thuruthicadu P.O, Mallapally Taluk, Pathanamthitta.
(Appeared in person)
Opposite party :
The Manager, Asianet Communications Ltd., 3rd Floor, Karimpanal Arcade, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram-23.
(By adv. Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair)
This O.P having been heard on 04.09.2010, the Forum on 30.09.2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
On 28.05.2006, complainant paid Rs. 3,564/- for the account data line Internet connection and got the connection from the opposite party, the Asianet Communications Ltd. On 20.12.2006 she shifted her rented house. The information regarding the shifting of residence was given to the opposite party through a letter dated 23.12.2006 for disconnecting the Internet Connection which was provided on the payment made by the complainant. From 20.12.2006 onwards the complainant had not made use of the internet facility. As per the invoice of the opposite party itself, they stated that the connection will be disconnected if the amount is not paid before the due date. On 29.05.2007 the complainant went to the office of the opposite party to clear the dues till 20.12.2006. But then the office staff directed the complainant to pay the bill for the internet facility till 30.05.2007, which she did not use. Then the complainant approached the Asianet Manager to get a relief. He told the complainant that they did not receive the letter that they had shifted the house and did not need internet connection. Then the Manager requested to pay Rs. 2,000/- to settle the dealings. Even though the complainant need not have to remit this much amount, as a gentle customer she remitted Rs.2,000/-. But again and again the bill of unused internet connection are being send to the complainant at the previous rented house. The complainant had informed the matter to the opposite party through a registered letter dated 25.01.2008. After receiving the letter the opposite party on 13.09.2008 sent a SMS to the complainant’s mobile phone stating that “Your due as on today is Rs. 1,437.80 please pay immediately”. Complainant is not a subscriber from 20.12.2006, even now the opposite party is continuously demands payment through bills as SMS. On 14.09.2008 the complainant had sent a registered letter to the opposite party stating the whole facts and also demanding to settle the issues. Therefore a legal notice was sent to the opposite party. But till now the opposite party had not either refund the amount or settle the matter. Complainant states that she has suffered a heavy loss on account of the deficiency of service and the defamation caused by the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed their version. In the version opposite party states that the complaint has been filed without any bonafides, just to harass and vex the opposite party. The only aim of the complainant is for unjust enrichment from the opposite party. They state that it is admissible that the subscriber is a customer of the opposite party. The complainant joined the scheme of Homenet Night Bird-Quarterly Rs. 1,159/-. The payment remitted by the complainant is always in the last of every month, i.e; she is paying the subscription very late. Opposite party submitted that no excess amount was collected by the opposite party and the amount collected is as per usage of the complainant. The opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
In this case, the complainant’s husband has filed proof affidavit for and on behalf of the complainant. He has produced 4 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. He was cross examined by the opposite party. Opposite party did not adduce any evidence.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
Whether there has been deficiency in service and unfair trade practice occurred from the side of opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the complainant is a subscriber of opposite party from 28.05.2006. On 20.12.2006 they shifted their rented house and they informed the matter to the opposite party through a letter that they need not want the internet connection. Ext. P1 is the photocopy of the letter. But the opposite party continuously issued bills to the complainant. On 29.05.2007 the complainant approached the opposite party and as per the direction of the opposite party she had paid Rs. 2,000/- for settling the matter. But as per the complainant she is not liable to pay that much amount. She did not use the internet facility from 23.02.2006. But she paid the amount. Ext. P2 is the photocopy of payment receipt. But thereafter also the opposite parties demanded subscription fee from the complainant continuously. The complainant sent a letter to the opposite party on 25.01.2008 informing the matter and requested not to send unnecessary bills. Ext. P3 is the copy of registered letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party. But even after the acceptance of that letter, opposite party again sent bills to the complainant through SMS. At last on 14.09.2008 the complainant had sent a registered letter to the opposite party stating the whole facts and also demanded to settle the issues. Ext. P4 is the copy of that letter. Ext. P4(a) is the postal receipt and Ext. P4(b) is the acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party. But the opposite party did not turn up to settle the matter. From the documents and evidences adduced by the complainant, we find that the complainant had cleared all the dues with the opposite party on 30.05.2007. But even after settling the matter, opposite party has been continuously demanding payment for the disconnected internet facility to the complainant. The act of the opposite party in continuously harassing the complainant definitely comes under the purview of deficiency in their service. And moreover the opposite party received an amount of Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant on 30.05.2007. In the version the opposite party himself admitted that the quarterly subscription fee is Rs. 1,159/-. Hence the opposite party received an excess amount of Rs. 841/- (Rs. 2,000/- - Rs. 1,159/-) from the complainant. The complainant in this case has succeeded to establish her case with sufficient documents. Hence the opposite party is liable to repay that amount. The acceptance of the excess amount definitely amounts to unfair trade practice. From the above mentioned discussion we find that there has been deficiency in service and unfair trade practice occurred from the side of opposite party. The complainant has suffered so much mental agony and loss due to the act of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 8,41/- to the complainant and shall pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of September 2010.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 131/2009
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS :
PW1 - Dr. Saji Chacko
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of letter addressed to opposite party.
P2 - Copy of receipt dated 29.05.2007
P3 - Copy of letter addressed to opposite party.
P4 - Copy of letter dated 14.09.2008
P4(a) - Copy of postal receipt
P4(b) - Copy of acknowledgement card.
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
PRESIDENT
jb
