State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027



S.C. CASE NO. : FA/08/471



DATE OF FILING : 10.12.2008 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 24.07.2009


APPELLANTS

Dr. Samit Bhattacharya

S/o Santi Ranjan Bhattacharjee

Residing at Plot No. 421, “C” Block,

P.O. Sodepur, Kolkata-700 110.



RESPONDENTS

The Reliance Communication Industries Ltd.

(Eastern Zonal Office)

having their registered office at “Reliance House”

34, Chowringhee Road

Koklkata-700 071.



BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. S.Dewan, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. P.Banerjee, Ld. Advocate





: O R D E R :


MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement dt. 31.10.08 passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas, in D.F. Case No. 97/2006 wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint on contest without cost.

The complainant’s case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant obtained a Mobile Telephone connection on 23.3.03 against payment of Rs. 3,000/- and also by delivering 12 post-dated quarterly cheques @ Rs. 1,800/- each for the period commencing from 23.4.03 to 23.1.06. According to the complainant’s case, after activation of the said mobile set the complainant was not satisfied as desired service could not be obtained by the complainant. The complainant lodged several complaints to the OP, but those complainants were not properly attended to and ultimately the complainant surrendered the mobile set with connection on 24.9.03 at the OP’s office after observing all the formalities. It is the specific case of the complainant that during the possession of the mobile set the complainant received four bills which were the result of the incorrect bill. Those bills included a period prior to obtaining the mobile connection by the complainant. Besides that, as per agreement between the parties the complainant was not supposed to receive the bills as advance payments were made by the complainant by delivery of post-dated cheques @ Rs. 1,800/- each. The complainant also made payments to the tune of Rs. 600/- per month for guaranteed talk-time. It is the complainant’s case that the complainant never used the mobile set beyond the allotted time limit, but he bills raised by the Ops indicated that those bills were beyond the prescribed and allotted time limit. The complainant raised objections and lodged complaints against such illegal raising of bills, but without any avail at all. According to the complainant’s case, even after surrender of the mobile connection on 24.9.03 the complainant received a bill in the month of January, 2005 for Rs. 10,808.15 with a phone number which never belonged to the complainant’s set. On complainant’s lodging a complaint a fresh bill was sent without giving any details of the call roster. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the services rendered by the Ops the petition of complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum for compensation and also return of money value of 10 post-dated cheques delivered by the complainant.

The OP contested the case by filing written objection thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the complainant used the mobile set beyond the time limit and that the actual consumption amount was incorporated in the bills sent to the complainant. There was some wrong billing and as and when the same was brought to the notice of the OP it was promptly rectified. Therefore, question of deficiency in service at the instance of the OP No. 1 does not arise at all and that the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed with cost.

The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the complainant never challenged the correctness and genuineness of the bills in question sent by the OP and the OP’s admission regarding sending of incorrect bill and subsequent rectification thereto indicate the fairness on the part of the OP and the complainant having failed to substantiate his case the petition of complaint was dismissed without cost.

The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the case in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that in the present case the Appellant observed and complied with all the formalities including payment of cash of Rs. 3,000/- along with delivery of post-dated quarterly chques @ Rs. 1,800/- in favour of the OP/Respondent as claimed by them for the purpose of availing of the mobile telephone connection. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, the Appellant never got any smooth service in respect of the mobile connection, rather there was constant disturbances in the form of low signal, non-clarity of sound and non-functioning of the mobile set in several areas and being disgusted with such insufficient service from the Op the complainant/Appellant surrendered the telephone on 24.9.03 in the office of the Op and obtained valid receipt thereof. While traversing the illegal acts of the Op in the form of sending and raising of non-existent bills together with raising of abnormal and inflated bills to the complainant increased the misery of the complainant to a great extent. The complainant from time to time contacted the Customer Care Service of the OP, but without any avail. Thus, according to the Ld. Advocate, there was a clear case of arbitrary action on the part of the OP including deficiency in service. While criticizing the impugned judgement it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Ld. District Forum though has mentioned the raising of inflated bill at the instance of the OP, but simply because the OP/Respondent has admitted the raising of those inflated bills it has let off the OP/Respondent without assigning any reason whatsoever. In this connection, it has also been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that though the Appellant surrendered his mobile connection on 24.9.03, the OP went on sending the bills to the complainant/Appellant subsequent thereto for the following period. But unfortunately this fact was not taken into consideration by the Ld. District Forum and though the Ld. District Forum has observed that the Appellant was a Consumer in its true sense, but it dismissed the complaint on the mistaken plea that there was no deficiency in service at the instance of the OP. While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted before us that the impugned judgement is not at all sustainable under the law as it does not conform with the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the OP in this regard.

It has been submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Appellant may have surrendered his mobile connection on 24.9.03, but the Respondent raised bills subsequent thereto as the Appellant admittedly used the mobile connection beyond the prescribed limit, for which there was no alternative left before the OP/Respondent but to raise bills. In supporting the impugned judgement it has been submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the same is quite justified and proper inasmuch as when there was no dispute as regards quantum of the amount of the bills sent by the OP to the complainant. There was absolutely no scope on the part of the District Forum to form any adverse view against the OP. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, the impugned judgement has been properly written and the Ld. Forum after appreciating the cases of the respective parties has arrived at a just and proper decision and the same should be confirmed after dismissing the present Appeal.

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of both sides and have gone through the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgement and find that in this case the Appellant has put forward a case to the effect that he after obtaining the mobile connection after observing all the formalities including payment of cash and deposit of 12 post-dated cheques, he was dissatisfied with the service of the OP due to which he surrendered the mobile phone and the connection on 24.9.03. But unfortunately subsequent thereto there was sending of bills to the complainant/Appellant which remained totally unexplained. The OP, on the other hand, has put up a case to the effect that the some bills may have been raised inadvertently, but the call details have been given to the complainant and in the absence of any objection to such raising of bills there is practically no merit in the present Appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. We have gone through the impugned judgement and find that the Ld. District Forum has adjudged the Appellant to be a Consumer, but as the Appellant did not raise any objection to the bills sent to him the Ld. Forum has observed that the complaint was not sustainable and accordingly dismissed the same. In this connection, we are of opinion that when it is admitted that the Appellant did surrender the mobile connection on 24.9.03 and more so, when it is also an admitted position that there was raising of inflated and abnormal bills at the instance of the OP, we are constrained to hold that definitely there was deficiency in service at the instance of the OP. The simple fact that the Appellant did not raise any objection in writing against sending of subsequent inflated bills will not ipso facto demolish the complainant’s case as a whole. After taking into account that the complainant surrendered his mobile connection on 24.9.03 we think ends of justice would be met if the Respondent be directed to refund the amount covered by 10 post-dated cheques @ Rs. 1,800/- only thus amounting to Rs. 18,000/- only together with interest @ 6% per annum. Considering the present Appeal in the light of above observation we find some merit in the present Appeal and also are of opinion that the impugned judgement is not at all sustainable under the law as the Ld. District Forum did not appreciate the actual state of affairs as discussed above. In the result, the Appeal succeeds.

Hence, ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). The Appellant is entitled to refund of Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) being the amount of 10 post-dated cheques @ Rs. 1,800/- each, from the OP together with interest @ 6% (six per cent) per annum till realization of the same in full. The impugned judgement is set aside. The OP is directed to pay the said amount within 1(one) month from the date of communication of this order, failing which the decretal amount shall accrue further interest @ 10% (ten per cent) per annum for the period of default.



MEMBER MEMBER