BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 23rd day of December, 2005.
CD No. 143/2005
L.Viswanadham,
S/o L.C.Rama Rao,
Hindu, Practicing as an Advocate,
Aged 43 years, resident of
81-306, Udyoganagar,
Near Ramachandra Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1.The Managing Director,
Reliance Infocom Services,
Reliance Industries Limited,
3rd Floor, Market Chamber-IV,
222, Nariman Point,
Mumbai.
2.The Manager,
Reliance Infocom Services,
Reliance Industries Limited,
3rd Floor, Market Chamber-IV,
222, Nariman Point,
Mumbai.
3.Customer Care Incharge,
Reliance Customer Care Centre,
S.V.Complex,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 16.12.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri Pokala Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties No.1,2 and No.3, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- as damages, Rs.1,000/- as costs and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant purchased a cell from opposite parties at Kurnool by paying Rs.3,350/- vide receipt bearing No. 2224539281 under 324 monthly plan and the complainant preferred No.08518-330738 as his the land line No. is 230738 and after 1 ½ years the said number is converted in 10 digit No. Viz 9393830730. On 4.6.2005 the complainant’s cell connection stopped functioning even though there was sufficient balance to his credit and the complainant on 5.6.2005 and 7.6.2005 approached the customer care center of opposite parties and after thorough checkup it was revealed that complainant’s number was changed and received a message on 10.6.2005 that his cell number was changed to 9346979780. Thereafter the complainant was receiving calls from Hyderabad to one Mr. Ali who is said to be the original allotee of the changed No.9346979780, being vexed the complainant was forced to connection with No.9346886074 by spending Rs.199/-. Thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice dated 23-6-2005 to opposite parties demanding restoration of old cell phone and payment of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for loss of business and mental strain. The opposite parties on 28-6-2005 restored the old cell number unilaterally and gave evasive reply for escaping their liability. Hence, there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite parties towards the complainant. The above said lapsive conduct of opposite parties constrained the complainant to resort to Forum for redressal.
3. In substantiation of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz.(1) Office copy Legal notice dated 23-6-2005 addressed to opposite party No.2 (2) Reply letter by opposite party No.2 dated 12-7-2005 addressed to the complainant and (3) Reply by opposite parties counsel dated 23-6-2005 addressed to the complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A3 for its appreciation in this case and the complainant caused interrogatories to opposite parties.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filing written version of opposite parties 1,2 and 3.
5. The written version of opposite parties boldly denies all the averments of the complainant’s complaint and submits that it is only at the persistent requests of the complainant his hand set was linked to his old mobile directing number 9393830738 and the same was conveyed to the complainant through their letter dated 12-7-2005. The reply dated 27-7-2005 clearly pointed the possibility such as tampering with software of RIM phone of the complainant and the opposite parties are no way responsible for the alleged Sudden unilateral discontinuation. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
6. In substantiation of its written version the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz (1) Office copy of reply notice dated 27-7-2005 issued by opposite parties counsel to complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party in reiteration of its written version and the above document is marked as Ex.B1 for its appreciation in this case and suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service and deficient conduct on part of opposite parties:-
8. It is a simple case of the complainant alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties as his cell phone was unilaterally discontinued from service on 4.6.2005 even though there was sufficient balance of amount to his credit and allotting another number to his cell and after 24 days that is on 28.6.2005 his hand set was linked to his old mobile No. 9393836738, but the opposite parties in their written version alleges that they are not at all responsible for the alleged sudden unilateral discontinuation and for such tampering the opposite parties are in no way responsible.
9. The learned counsel for opposite parties contended that change in the number of the cell of the complainant is not possible without physically operating the cell, but no supporting cogent material is placed by the opposite parties in substantiating the above said contentions, and it is not possible to a take a different view merely on the statement or assertion of the opposite parties, when it is the case of the complainant that his cell was stopped functioning from 4.6.2005 till 28.6.2005, until the opposite parties linked the old number to the handset of the complainant. Hence, from the above what appears is that when a hand set can be linked on 28.6.2005, it can also be linked when the complainant made his first complainant on 5.6.2005, hence, there appears gross negligence and carelessness and deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in not doing so. Hence, there appears no justification in the submissions made by the learned counsel for opposite parties. What ever may have been the situation earlier it appears that with the present technological advances, which are now freely available to large companies, it would not be difficult for opposite parties to attend the complainant’s complaint and to rectify the problems within a day or two, but unless established otherwise for cogent reasons, a delay beyond that would in essence be a deficiency of service undertaken to be rendered by the opposite parties at least within the Consumer Jurisdiction.
10. On perusal of record, there is nothing on record to show that the opposite parties are deligent and were making efforts to rectify the problems faced the complainant, but on the other side simply alleging that they are not responsible for the unilateral discontinuation which is not accepted.
11. To sum up of the discussions supra, there appears every deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in unilaterally discontinuing the service connection to the complainant’s cell and after 24 days linking the said service to the complainant’s cell. Hence the complainant is certainly remaining entitled to compensation and costs and it would be just and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,500/- as compensation and costs of Rs.500/-.
12. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.1,500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs within a month of receipt of this order. In default the supra awarded amount shall be paid with 12% interest per annum from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the Open Court this the 23rd day of December, 2005.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Office copy of Legal notice, Dt.23-6-2005 addressed to opposite party
No.2
Ex.A2 Reply letter, Dt.12-7-2005
Ex.A3 Reply letter, Dt.27-7-2005
Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Office copy of the reply of Ex.A3 (To legal notice of the complainant)
Dt.27-7-2005
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri. M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri. Pokala Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
