BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 119/2003 Filed on 15.03.2003

Dated : 28.02.2011

Complainant:

C.P. Satheesh, T.C 15/1632, Minchin Road, Vazhuthacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. T.K. Ananda Padmanabhan)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Escottel Mobile Communications Ltd., represented by Regional Manager, Regional Office, Mercy Estate, Ravipuram, M.G. Road, Cochin.

    

Addl. Opposite party:

2. The Manager, Escottel Mobile Communications Ltd., Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 31.12.2010, the Forum on 28.02.2011 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant was a subscriber of the mobile service of the opposite party which was activated on 28^th March 2002. Ever since the activation of the service, the complainant was in sheer mental agony on account of the poor quality of the service extended by the opposite party. The complainant availed the service with roaming facility for his business purpose on account of his travel in and around the country. In the month of August/September 2002 the complainant was in Chennai for some business purpose. Prior to his departure, the complainant verified with the opposite party as to the availability of the roaming service since he had bitter experiences on earlier occasions. The opposite party informed the complainant that he could make and receive connections anywhere in the country on account of the roaming facility already availed by the complainant. To his utter surprise and dismay, the complainant on reaching Chennai found that he is unable either to make any outgoing calls or could he receive any incoming calls in his mobile. The complainant on the same day, that is on 24.08.2002, brought the matter to the notice of the opposite party from Chennai many number of times. Even though the opposite party assured to rectify the same on the very same day, nothing useful turned up ever since thereof. The above act of the opposite party amounts to clear deficiency in service warranting immediate stringent action along with adequate compensation. Hence this complaint for refund along with compensation and costs.

Opposite parties have filed their joint version contending as follows: Complainant has taken the connection on 28^th March 2002. Roaming facility was available to the petitioner and his averments that he had bitter experience on several occasions and also that he could not make out going calls and incoming calls are utter falsehood. Even after coming from Chennai, from records it is seen that the petitioner has availed the service of the opposite party. So his contention that he had sent written letter to the opposite party for disconnection of his service is against the true facts. Complainant was served with bill on 08.08.2002 for an amount of Rs. 842/- which was paid to him as per cheque No. 956646. Thereafter 3 bills were issued to him for which no payment was made by him. When the complainant did not make the payments for the services he had availed, the opposite party informed him through the mobile phone regarding the payment which was not done by him and so the opposite party was forced to send a legal notice to the complainant. At the request of the complainant the opposite party has served a detailed statement regarding the calls made by the complainant. The petitioner has filed this complaint only to harass the opposite party. The opposite party has acted only as per the norms and conditions. Hence pray for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.

Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P7. DW1 has been examined on behalf of opposite parties and marked Ext. D1.

The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?

    

Points (i) & (ii):- Admittedly, the complainant is the subscriber of the opposite parties. The complainant pleads that, he had availed roaming facility for his business purpose on account of his travel in an around the country, but during the month of August/September 2002, the complainant who was in Chennai could not make outgoing calls or receive any incoming calls in his mobile. Opposite parties have contended that roaming facility was available and that as per records the complainant had received incoming calls and also made outgoing calls during his stay at Chennai. Hence the aspect which requires consideration is whether the complainant could enjoy uninterrupted roaming service as assured by opposite parties.

We have gone through the records produced by both parties. As per Ext. P1, the letter seen issued by the complainant to the opposite party on 01.10.2002, it has been stated that both incoming and outgoing calls were barred when he was in Chennai which is against the assurance given by the opposite parties and that the complainant has requested to disconnect the service and has asked for refund for the security deposit. But Ext. P1 is not supported with any acknowledgement or any document to show that Ext. P1 has been sent to the opposite party or has been received by the opposite party. Furthermore as per the legal notice issued to the complainant on behalf of opposite parties dated 06.01.2003, the complainant has been asked to pay a sum of Rs. 1,837.84 towards due. As per Ext. P3 reply notice issued by complainant's counsel it has been stated that the complainant was unable to make or receive any calls from his mobile while he was at Chennai. The opposite parties have furnished the call details of the complainant's telephone number which has been marked as Ext. D1. In Ext. D1 details of 241 calls in the complainant's phone could be seen. Furthermore, details of incoming calls during the period from 27.08.2002 to 20.09.2002 have been mentioned. The duration of service is also mentioned. The duration service of some of the calls in Ext. D1 are as follows: 0030 dated 28.08.2002 at 17:14 in 09895040301 is 12:56 calls, that of 0055 dated 01.09.2002 is 5:24 calls, 0142 dated 10.09.2002 at 16:53 is 5:33 calls, 0177 dated 13.09.2002 at 20:55 is 15:04 calls. Ext. D1 contains details of all the calls, only some of them have been referred above. The complainant has not denied the above details in Ext. D1. In the above circumstances, it is evident from Ext. D1 that the allegation of the complainant that on reaching Chennai he was unable to make any outgoing calls or could receive any incoming calls in his mobile is utter false and baseless. We find that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. Hence we find no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In view of the above, we hereby dismiss the complaint.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

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 28^th day of February 2011.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 119/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of letter issued by the complainant to opposite party.

P2 - Advocate notice dated 06.01.2003

P3 - Reply notice issued by complainant's counsel.

P4 - Copy of letter issued by the opposite party dated 04.02.2003.

P5 - Legal notice dated 27.02.2003.

P6 - Copy of detailed bills.

P7 - Advocate notice dated 11.09.2006.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Sachin

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of call details of the complainant's telephone number.

PRESIDENT

jb