Date of filing : 12-04-2006<br /> Date of Order : 17-05-2008<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD<br /> C.C.No.46/06<br /> Dated this, the 17th day of May 2008.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER<br /> <br /> Ameer Hamsa,<br /> R/at V/307, } Complainant<br /> Ameer Hamsa Manzil, Kunil of<br /> Mogral Po, Kasaragod.Dt.<br /> (Adv.Rajagopala.A.Bank Road,<br /> Kasaragod)<br /> <br /> 1. The Managing Director, } Opposite parties<br /> TATA Indicom, <br /> TATA Teleservices Ltd, <br /> SL Plazsa, Palarivattom, <br /> Cochin.682025.<br /> 2. The Manager, <br /> Enay Com,(Business Associate-<br /> Tata Teleservices Ltd)<br /> 1106,Enay Complex, MG Road,<br /> Kasaragod.<br /> (Ops 1& 2.Adv.S.Krishnakumar &<br /> Srikantha Shetty, Kasaragod)<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT<br /> Tersely stated the complaint is as follows.<br /> Complainant attracted with the pamphlets advertisements attractive publications that it can be used to call other mobiles and land lines including BSNL there would be no monthly rentals and call charges etc availed a TATA INDICOM Wireless land phone connection on April 2005. But he could not make calls to BSNL Land Lines or mobile connections and its services was limited to Tata Indicom phones only. Therefore he could not make use of the phone as expected. Further he was served with a bill dtd.27-12-2005 for Rs.526/- for the period from 25-11-2005 to 24-12-2005. He is not liable to pay the said bill of future bills until BSNL land line and mobile services assured are provided. The lawyer notice issued to Opposite party No.1 at his instruction was not replied with. The action of the Opposite parties is a grave deficiency in service and hence the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite party No.1 entered appearance and filed version in response to the notice served on them. Eventhough notice is served Opposite party No.2 did not turned up. Hence Opposite party No.2 was set exparte.<br /> 3. According to Opposite party No.1 the complainant was provided with Tata Indicom Walky Wireless telephone connection on deposit of Rs.1000/- as security. But it was told to him by OP No.2 that he need not pay the telephone charges until the connectivity of its net work with the net work of BSNL is approved in Kannur and Kasaragod District. It was also told by Opposite party No.2 that in the event the request of Tata Tele services Ltd was rejected by the concerned authority he would be at liberty to surrender phone connection. But government refused the request of Tata Tele Services Ltd. It was further told that the complainant could either surrender the telephone connection or he could retain it and in that event he would be billed and hence the bill for Rs.526/- is served upon the complainant. As the opposite party No.1 was unable to provide connectivity to its subscribers at kannur and Kasaragod with the net work operated by BSNL the customers were given a special offer with waiver of rent for 3 months caller ID charges call charges of Rs.75/- per month from Tata to Tele phones and discount in usage. This was also informed to all its customers through Opposite party No.2. But the bills were issued due to oversight immediately through 2nd Opposite party has informed all its customers at Kasaragod including the petitioner that they need pay the bills after deducting the same. Even after that complainant need not paid the bill. There is no unfair trade practice and the complaint is to be dismissed.<br /> 4. Complainant has not adduced any oral evidence. But Exts A1 to A4 marked. On the side of Opposite party no witnesses were examined and no documents produced. 2nd Opposite party remained set exparte. Heard the counsels of both sides.<br /> 5. The specific case of the complainant is that he availed the connection attracted with the pamphlets advertisements and publications of Opposite party No.1 that it can be used to call other mobiles and land lines including BSNL and until it is tied up with BSNL there would be no monthly rentals or call charges etc.<br /> 6. Opposite party has not disputed the above allegations. According to them anticipating the connectivity with BSNL net work they advertised and provided connections by accepting Rs.1000/- as deposit and Rs.800/- as installation charges. It became a common practice among the various service provides to give slick advertisements and attract gullible consumer and later to withdraw from the promise or offers as advertised.<br /> 7. Here Opposite party Opposite party No.1 not only unfulfilled their promises but saddled the consumer by issuing bill for Rs.526/-. Eventhough Opposite party No.1 submitted that the bill is issued due to oversight and the complainant need only the balance pay after deducting the discounts Opposite party is unable to say even what exactly is the balance after discount. So it is clear that their claim is not sustainable.<br /> 8. The act of giving slick advertisements in various medias to attract gullible consumers unfulfill the promises, putting the consumers on contingency, saddle them with bills to which they are not liable are best examples of deficient service. Hence we find Opposite party No.1 committed deficiency in their service.<br /> Hence we allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties 1 to 2 to cancel the bill dtd.27-12-05 for Rs.526/- and to refund the security deposit of Rs.1000/- with Rs.2000/- as the cost of this proceedings. Time for compliance of this order is one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the Order.<br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Exts.<br /> A1. 27-12-2005 Bill issued by Opposite party to complainant.<br /> A2.30-1-2006 copy of letter issued by complainant to Opposite parties.<br /> A3. Postal acknowledgement of Opposite party No.1<br /> A4. Postal acknowledgement of Opposite party No.2<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Forwarded by Order<br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br /> Pj/ <br /> <br /> <br />