BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No: 434/2003 Filed on 07/11/2003

Dated: 30..06..2010

Complainant:

Gopakumar. K ., T.C.2/477, Kovilvilakathu Veedu, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 011.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite parties:

1. The Sales Manager, Reliance Industries Ltd.A/c DAE, Lavanya 26/32, Hindumition Road, Behind S.M.S.M Institute, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. The Manager, Reliance Billing Services, Lavanya 26/32, Hindumition Road, ..do.. ..do..

    

3. The Manager, Reliance Capital Ltd., Lavanya 26/32, Hindumition Road, ..do.. ..do..

    

(opp. Parties 1 to 3 by Adv. N. Padmini)

This O.P having been heard on 25..05..2010, the Forum on 30..06..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

The complainant has approached this Forum with the following grievances: The complainant had made a payment for Rs. 3,000/- and 12 post dated cheques for Rs.1,800/- each for a telephone connection as per POFI Tariff. At the time of booking, it was assured that the telephone will be activated in March and from April 1^st the telephone will be connected and that billing would also be started. But against the said assurance, even after 5 months from the date of booking as the telephone connection was not proper and as there were charges in pulse rates from those assured before and as the free time limit was changed from 400 minutes, and as other charges were also included, the complainant sent a registered letter on 6/5/03 to disconnect the telephone connection and to refund Rs. 3,000/- along with 12 post dated cheques. But there was no action taken by the opposite party in this matter. Inspite of the above, the opposite party presented complainant's cheque and the same was returned for 'funds insufficient'. Hence the complainant was forced to make stop payment of those cheques by remitting Rs.50/-. Hence the complainant prays for an order for disconnection of his telephone connection along with refund and such other reliefs.

2. The opposite parties have filed their joint version contending as follows: That the complaint is not maintainable. The payment of Rs. 3,000/- as Club membership fee for joining the Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer Offer is admitted. The same is non-refundable. The mobile was activated in time. Nothing has been done by the opposite party in contradiction to what is stated in the brochure. With respect to the letter send by the complainant dated 6/5/03, there is no specific direction for termination of connection. The averment that the complainant sent a letter for cutting the telephone connection is totally false. Even otherwise, the opposite party is not in a position to terminate a connection on the basis of a letter. In case the complainant wants to terminate the services, the complainant could have very well walked into any of the Web Worlds of the opposite party fill up the requisite form and surrender the hand set clear his dues and terminate the services. It is for the complainant to go to the office of the opposite party and get this connection terminated. The complainant has not at any time approached the opposite party to terminate his service. Clause 7 (iii) of the Terms and Conditions is very clear regarding this aspect. Hence there is no latches or lapse on the part of the opposite party. Hence pray for dismissal of the complaint.

3. Both parties have filed their affidavits. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Exts. P1 to P8. Opposite parties had no documentary evidence.

From the contentions made by the complainant, the following points are to be considered:

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

    

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?

    

4. Points (i) & (ii) : There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had applied for a Reliance India Mobile Phone Service by paying Rs. 3,000/- along with 12 post dated cheques for Rs. 1,800/- each to the opposite parties. The allegation of the complainant is that as the telephone connection was not proper and as the opposite parties acted against the assurance given, at the time of taking connection, regarding free time for 400 minutes and charge in pulse rate, he had sent a registered letter to opposite parties for disconnecting his connection and to refund the amount and cheques. Which according to the complainant has not been considered by the opposite parties and without considering the same, the opposite parties have presented his cheque which returned for 'funds insufficient', thereby forcing the complainant to inform the bank for stop payment of those cheques by remitting Rs. 50/-. Though the opposite party has admitted the receipt of the letter, they contend that there is no specific direction for termination of connection. The learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that the opposite party cannot terminate a connection on the basis of a letter and if the complainant wants to terminate the service the complainant has to go to any of the Web Worlds of this opposite party fill up requisite form and surrender the hand set clear his dues and terminate the service or the complainant has to go to the Office of the opposite party and get his connection terminated which according to the opposite party has been stated in Clause 7 (iii) of the Terms & Conditions.

5. At this juncture, the aspect to be looked into is whether the complainant has informed the opposite parties regarding the termination of the telephone connection as per the terms and conditions. We have perused the documents on record. Ext. P1 is the specimen of Customer Application Form which contains the terms and conditions overleaf. As per it the customers are agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions provided overleaf. As contended in the version, there is no clause 7 (iii) in the said terms and conditions. The opposite parties have neither produced any terms and conditions with clause 7 (iii). Furthermore, on going through Ext. P1, Clause 8 reads as follows: 'Correspondence – Any notification required to be given shall be given in writing by fax, e-mail or registered mail to the recipient at his/her or its address specified in these terms and conditions/CAF unless such recipient has previously notified the other part in writing of a change of that address. Any notification required to be given by the Company can also be given by electronic message to the subscribers' handset'.

6. From the above clause 8 of the terms and conditions, it is clear that any notification in writing is sufficient. In this case the complainant had sent a registered letter on 6/5/03, the receipt of which the opposite parties also admit. But the learned counsel for the opposite parties had argued that there was no specific direction for termination of connection in that letter. We have gone through the contends of Ext. P5 letter dated 6/5/2003. The complainant has very specifically mentioned that “ഈ അവസ്ഥയില്‍ താങ്കള്‍ ആദ്യം വാഗ്ദാനം നല്‍കിയ 15 second – ന് 10 ps എന്ന നിരക്കിലുള്ള താരിഫ് അല്ല താങ്കള്‍ നടപ്പിലാക്കുന്നത് എങ്കില്‍ അടിയന്തിരമായി എന്‍റെ telephone connection cancel ചെയ്യാനും ഞാന്‍ അടച്ച 3000/- രൂപയും എന്നില്‍നിന്ന് advance ആയി ഒപ്പിട്ടുവാങ്ങിയ 1,800/- രൂപയുടെ 12 post dated ചെക്കുകളും എന്നില്‍നിന്ന് ഒപ്പിട്ടുവാങ്ങിയ loan application forms- ഉം ഉള്‍പ്പെടെ ഒരാഴ്ചയ്ക്കുള്ളില്‍ മടക്കി നല്‍കുവാനും ഉള്ള അടിയന്തിര നടപടികള്‍ സ്വീകരിക്കുവാന്‍ ഞാന്‍ താങ്കളോട് അഭ്യര്‍ത്ഥിക്കുന്നു '. Hence it is concluded that the opposite parties have been informed by the complainant properly and the act of the opposite parties in not taking any appropriate steps to disconnect the telephone service of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. The act of the opposite parties in presenting the cheque inspite of the above request also tantamounts to deficiency in service on their part. As per clause 6(iv) of Ext. P1 in case the subscriber opts for discontinuation of services, the Company shall refund directly to the subscriber the amounts paid in advance to the Company at the time of availing of the services after adjustments if any. Hence there is no whisper with regard to the return of handset.

7. From the above discussion, we find that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.3,000/- less any amount due from the complainant till 6/5/2003. The complainant is also entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,000/- from the opposite parties for the deficiency in service on their part. The complainant is also found entitled for return of the cheques from the opposite parties.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties shall refund Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant after adjusting the dues if any on his connection till 6/5/03 and shall return the 12 post dated cheques of the complainant alongwith a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and a cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

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 30^th day of June, 2010.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No.434/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of customer application Form

P2 : " Brochure of Reliance Pioneer offer

P3 : " extract of booklet – Reliance India Mobile Offer value proposition

P4 : Photocopy of bills – 10 Nos issued by the opposite party from 20/1/03 to 31/03/2004

P5 : " the complaint registered by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 6/5/03

P6 : " Savings statement for the period from 01/04/03 to 30/6/2003

P7 : " receipt cum acknowledgementcard

P8 : Tariff of BSNL

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT