Mr.K.A. Alagarsamy

S/o. alagar Ramanajam,

No. 48-1-90 Kaloori Nagar,

Anna Nagar, Peelamedu,

Coimbatore – 641 004. --- Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. Reliance Webstores (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manger,

No. 526, 527 Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,

Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641012.

2. M/s. Reliance communications

Infrastructure Ltd., Rep. by its

Managing Director,

Regd. Office; H Block, 1st Floor,

Dhirubhai ambani knowledge City

Navi Mumbai – 400 710. --- Opposite Parties



This case coming on for final hearing before us on 15.9.09, in the presence of Mr.K.S. Anand, Advocate for complainant and the opposite parties are remained absent and set ex-parte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay the cost of the USB modem amount for a sum of Rs.3,180.00, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The Complainant is a self styled Textile consultant. The second opposite party is a telecom operator under the trade name “Reliance Mobile” providing mobile cellular services using CDMA technology. The 1st opposite party is one of the branch offices at Coimbatore. The complainant has wired internet connectivity at his office for the purpose of his business. Apart from this the complainant opted for a wireless internet connection at his residence purely for his personal use.

2. The complainant visited 1st opposite party and they offered to provide the best of service to the complainant. The staff at the 1st opposite party explained that Reliance Net connect is featured with “High speed internet access”, “High download speed of heavy. E-mail attachments”, “Connectivity speed with 144 Kbps” and “4 times faster than dial up connection or other date cards” and so on. Having convinced by the promises and commitments of the opposite parties the complainant decided to avail the services of the opposite parties and purchased a USB Modem with sim card number 9344299262 from the 1st opposite party on 15.02.2008 for a sum of Rs. 3,180/- and availed a tariff under the scheme “Swift – 30” under which the customer can avail free usage of 15 Hours during peak hours and 30 hours under off-peak hours and for any additional usage the customer shall be charged 50 paise per minute.

3. After two days the connection was activated i.e. on 17.02.2008 the complainant could get the service connected with his desktop computer at his house but unable to connect to his laptop which has Windows Vista Operating System and it displayed the following service/error messages



1) Symantec. Com is not setup to establish a connection on part world wide web service (HTTP) with this computer.

2) Windows found a problem that cannot be repaired automatically. Contact your internet provider or network administrator for help”



and the present details were communicated to the customer care of the opposite parties over phone and by e-mail on many occasions and they were very lethargic with their response right from the first instance. With no other go the complainant had made personal visit to office of the 1st opposite party with his laptop but the service staffs attached to them were unable to resolve the issue till 19th February 2008, and finally they informed the complainant to register the complaint at customer care number *333.

4. At the customer care the complaint was registered and they provided a mobile number of one Mr. Krishna. When the complainant contacted Mr. Krishna he was too agitated to speak and did not even listen at last on 29.02.2008 it was made ready by the service personal from the opposite parties. But system provided by the opposite parties Viz. the USB did not prove worthy, the speed of the system was poor at all times it could get connected only to a maximum of 30 kbps and not 144 kbps as committed by the opposite parties. It invariably connects to all the web sites even at late hours with the speed at 3 Kbps to 28 Kbps and not even once the connectivity speed was 144 Kbps as committed by inspite of the system configuration being P-IV, 2 GB RAM and 3.06 MHz speed which are more than the recommendation provided by the opposite parties.

5. This issue of poor speed was taken up with the opposite parties many times and at last the complainant got much dissatisfied and finally decided to surrender the service. The opposite party in their communication they admitted to the same. The complainant was charged with Rs.31.50 for contacting the customer care services (*333) of the opposite parties. It is the bounden duty of the telecom operator to provide the toll free number for the services and not to bill the customer while accessing the same in unfair manner. The complainant was charged for accessing the customer care number of the opposite parties inspite of the problems let unresolved at their end for quite long time.

6. The complainant decided to surrender the services of the opposite parties and they requested the complainant to give the same in writing with the 1st opposite party but they stoutly denied accepting the USB modem and refund for the same. Instead the opposite parties directed this complainant to resell the USB modem to his friends/others and refund by the opposite parties may not be possible and for which this complainant has stoutly refused to fool/cheat his friends/others unlike the opposite parties. But the complainant surrendered the service of the opposite parties. Unscrupulously the opposite parties were dispatching the bills without any delay inspite of the poor service and failure to set right the problems and among others. These only shows the unfair practice adopted, deficiency of service and the false promises made to lure the general public.

7. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavits along with Ex.A1 to A24 was marked and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte. The opp.parties was served notice on 25.2.08 for the hearing, dt.30.3.09 The opposite parties did not appear either in person or through their counsel, and have not filed any version on their side till the expiry of statutory period.

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1

8. The case of the complainant is that the complainant was attracted by the Pamphlets issued by the opposite party visited the first opposite party and decided to avail the services of the opposite party and purchased a USB Modem with sim card number 9344299262 from the 1st opposite party on 15.02.2008 for a sum of Rs. 3,180/- and availed a tariff under the scheme “Swift – 30” under which the customer can avail free usage of 15 Hours during peak hours and 30 hours under off-peak hours and for any additional usage the customer shall be charged 50 paise per minute. But the service of the opposite party was not upto the standard and not as promised. Hence this complaint.

9. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit and marked Ex.A1 to A24. Ex.A1 is the pamphlet issued by the opposite parties .The extract of relevant portion is given below:

…..

Get the winning edge over other data cards

Fastest speed & CDMA technology

High download speed of heavy e-mail attachments

Wireless internet speed upto 144 kbps

and Ex.A9 is the copy of E-mail reply issued by the 2nd opposite party in which the 2nd opposite party has admitted their mistakes. The relevant portion is given below:

“In continuation to your mail regarding the speed of Reliance Netconnect, please note that the access speed can be upto 144kbps, but in most real world situations, you can expect average speeds of 20-40 kbps.

“Though it is difficult to guarantee a minimum service speed, we assure you with our superior, high speed wireless technology and high bandwidth of an issue free access to the internet service”.



Hence we are of the view, the service of the opposite party was not upto the standard and not as promised. This was also admitted by the opposite party in his Email letter dt.5.3.2008. Not only that the complainant was charged with Rs.31.50 for contacting the customer care service(333).Thus the act and conduct of the opposite party is amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and therefore liable to pay damages and compensation.



10. In the result, we direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant the cost of the USB modem amount for a sum of Rs.3,180.00, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Ms. Nishi Sharma,

D/O Sh. Laiq Ram Sharma,

R/O Block No. C-13/68, Phagli,

Shimla-4, H.P.



… Complainant.

Versus





1. Kapoor Enterprises Reliance Web World Express Frachisee, 37, The Mall, Shimla-171001.



2. General Manager, Reliance Bhrata Sadan, Near Saraswati Vidyamandir School, Kasumpti, Shimla, H.P.



…Opposite Parties.







O R D E R:



This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that on, 28.09.2007, she purchased a ‘Classic 7310’ mobile phone along with Reliance Smart sim/connection, hence was allotted No.9817377325, under the Lifetime Validity Scheme, from the OP No.1, against the payment of Rs.1600/-. She further averred that the OPs, despite assurance did not activate the aforesaid number, despite he repeated requests to the OPs. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs, in its written version, to the complaint, besides raising preliminary objections, regarding territorial jurisdiction, contended that for verification tele calls to the connection of the complainant was made and every time it was found switched off, and also the complainant was not found available on the given address provided by her, hence, for non-verification, the services were barred in the interest of national security. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. It is not disputed that the complainant had obtained a mobile connection from the OPs, under Lifetime validity Scheme, against the payment of Rs.1600/-. Undisputedly, the OPs on score of an adverse verification noticed by the official of the OPs deactivated her cell phone.

6. The deactivation by the OPs, is, contended to be anvilled upon the norms exculpated by the Ministry of Communication, Government of India, necessitating, checking of the identity of the subscriber, for, obviating its abuse, in pursuance whereof, on, a negative verification of the subscriber having come to light, the, OPs proceeding to abruptly deactivate her cell phone.


However, in our considered view, the said act was an illegal action on their part, especially, when they have not adduced evidence, in, the shape of affidavits of the officials who visited the residential premises of the complainant and then, recorded a negative verification, warranting deactivation, hence, for want of above affidavits, the, the purported visits made by the officials of the OP and theirs then detecting a negative verifications, warranting deactivation, is, a, concoction, leading us, to, the sequel, that, that, when further the OPs have failed to prove that deactivation of the cell phone of the complainant was for want of balance in her account, that, hence, the deactivation, is, to be construed to be arbitrary. Therefore, the action of the OPs, in, abruptly debarring to her cell phone facility, constitutes a clear cut deficiency in service, on their part, as, the complainant being a student was availing the said facility for her personal use.

7. The complainant besides compensation has also sought direction against the OPs to refund to her the amount of Rs.1600/- along with interest, so paid by her for purchase of the cell phone. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we find that she is certainly entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.1600/- from the OPs, besides just and reasonable amount of compensation, which in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we proceed to assess at Rs.5,000/-, besides litigation cost of Rs.1000/-.

8. Accordingly, we direct the OPs, to refund Rs.1600/- to the complainant, and also pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for rendering deficient service, besides litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-, which shall be paid to the complainant by the OPs, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

) ISKCON,

3C, Albert Road, Kolkata-700017. ---------- Complainant

---Verses---

1) Reliance Telecommunication Ltd.,

Reliance House, 34, Chowringee Road,

Kolkata-700071. ---------- Opposite Party









It is the specific allegation of the complainant ISKCON of 3C, Albert Road, Kol-17, that on 01/10/2006 they got a telephone connection from Reliance Telecommunication Ltd. the Opposite Party of the case and the Reliance requested them by letter dated 11/10/2006 that they will install a DLC Equipment on the roof of the complainant’s building and it will be exclusively for the use of the complainant. But, ultimately they found that the O.P. was giving connection to thousand of other people who were using their building and boundary walls causing lot of disturbance to the complainant and some personnel of the O.P. use their lift and other facilities everyday invading their privacy.

Moreover, since installation the O.P. has not paid a single bill although the complainant requested them several time to pay the electricity bill and to pay Rs. 35,000/- for using the roof of the complainant for supplying telephone connection to other customer. But, the O.P. did not even reply to their letter. They have caused anxiety and used the infrastructure of the complainant for their business gain. And accordingly they should be given exemplary punishment for bad business practice.

It appears on perusal of the record that the case was admitted on 25/02/2008 when the Ld. Counsel for the O.P. appeared and undertook to file Vakalatname. But, as he did not filed Vakalatname the date of ex parte hearing was fixed. But further on 03/06/2008 the O.P. filed w/v. along with Vakalatnama and they have denied all the material allegation against them. They have stated the complainant had taken 42 numbers wire line for their land telephone connection and they are distributed in a particular arear from local main distribution box technically called DLC and they have not given any other connection from the DLC setup on the rooftop of the complainant’s premises.


They have admitted that they have not paid any electricity bill. But, the complainant has refused to get reimbursement of the electricity bill and bargained to get Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- for such DLC Connection and that their demand is highly unjustified. There is no question of bad business practices for their commercial gain and so the petition of complaint should be dismissed.



Decision with reasons :

Admittedly the O.P. took installed-DLC equipment on the roof of the complainant and connection to other people were given from the said DLC by the O.P. Further admitted position is that the complainant paid all the electricity bills and the charges for using of electricity from the DLC by other people also. The O.P. has filed a scrap of paper to prove that they ever wanted to pay any electricity bill for the use of DLC by other people.

It appears from the letter dated 11/10/2006 that the O.P. stated that “We are hereby confirming that the DLC will be placed for your telephone lines only and for the company’s general use. This equipment will not be used to provide services to other customers of other buildings”. But surprising enough that it has been contended in their w/v. that they approached the complainant for reimbursement of the electricity bill. Had it only been used by the complainant alone, then it is not understood that why the O.P. agreed to reimburse the electricity bill ? So evidently it can be most reasonably presumed that the connection to other people was given from the DLC setup on the roof of the complainant.

We have also gone through the letter dated 16/01/2008 written to the O.P. on the subject of non-payment of dues by the O.P. O.P. alleging therein that they had not paid any electricity charges for giving connection to the other people and they invaded their privacy. In a word all the allegations mad out in this letter are the replica of the contents of the petition of complaint. But, the O.P. did not give any reply to letter in question. So it can also be reasonably presumed that the O.P. has admitted the allegations labeled against them.

Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, evidence on record we are of the opinion that the petition of complaint has got merit of its own and the allegation of unfair trade practice is proved against the O.P.

Hence

ordered

that the petition dated 01/02/2008 is allowed on contest. The O.P. is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost positively within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till the full realization of Rs. 12,000/-.



Supply copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.

Mr.K.A. Alagarsamy

S/o. alagar Ramanajam,

No. 48-1-90 Kaloori Nagar,

Anna Nagar, Peelamedu,

Coimbatore – 641 004. --- Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. Reliance Webstores (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manger,

No. 526, 527 Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,

Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641012.

2. M/s. Reliance communications

Infrastructure Ltd., Rep. by its

Managing Director,

Regd. Office; H Block, 1st Floor,

Dhirubhai ambani knowledge City

Navi Mumbai – 400 710. --- Opposite Parties



This case coming on for final hearing before us on 15.9.09, in the presence of Mr.K.S. Anand, Advocate for complainant and the opposite parties are remained absent and set ex-parte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay the cost of the USB modem amount for a sum of Rs.3,180.00, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The Complainant is a self styled Textile consultant. The second opposite party is a telecom operator under the trade name “Reliance Mobile” providing mobile cellular services using CDMA technology. The 1st opposite party is one of the branch offices at Coimbatore. The complainant has wired internet connectivity at his office for the purpose of his business. Apart from this the complainant opted for a wireless internet connection at his residence purely for his personal use.

2. The complainant visited 1st opposite party and they offered to provide the best of service to the complainant. The staff at the 1st opposite party explained that Reliance Net connect is featured with “High speed internet access”, “High download speed of heavy. E-mail attachments”, “Connectivity speed with 144 Kbps” and “4 times faster than dial up connection or other date cards” and so on. Having convinced by the promises and commitments of the opposite parties the complainant decided to avail the services of the opposite parties and purchased a USB Modem with sim card number 9344299262 from the 1st opposite party on 15.02.2008 for a sum of Rs. 3,180/- and availed a tariff under the scheme “Swift – 30” under which the customer can avail free usage of 15 Hours during peak hours and 30 hours under off-peak hours and for any additional usage the customer shall be charged 50 paise per minute.

3. After two days the connection was activated i.e. on 17.02.2008 the complainant could get the service connected with his desktop computer at his house but unable to connect to his laptop which has Windows Vista Operating System and it displayed the following service/error messages



1) Symantec. Com is not setup to establish a connection on part world wide web service (HTTP) with this computer.

2) Windows found a problem that cannot be repaired automatically. Contact your internet provider or network administrator for help”



and the present details were communicated to the customer care of the opposite parties over phone and by e-mail on many occasions and they were very lethargic with their response right from the first instance. With no other go the complainant had made personal visit to office of the 1st opposite party with his laptop but the service staffs attached to them were unable to resolve the issue till 19th February 2008, and finally they informed the complainant to register the complaint at customer care number *333.

4. At the customer care the complaint was registered and they provided a mobile number of one Mr. Krishna. When the complainant contacted Mr. Krishna he was too agitated to speak and did not even listen at last on 29.02.2008 it was made ready by the service personal from the opposite parties. But system provided by the opposite parties Viz. the USB did not prove worthy, the speed of the system was poor at all times it could get connected only to a maximum of 30 kbps and not 144 kbps as committed by the opposite parties. It invariably connects to all the web sites even at late hours with the speed at 3 Kbps to 28 Kbps and not even once the connectivity speed was 144 Kbps as committed by inspite of the system configuration being P-IV, 2 GB RAM and 3.06 MHz speed which are more than the recommendation provided by the opposite parties.

5. This issue of poor speed was taken up with the opposite parties many times and at last the complainant got much dissatisfied and finally decided to surrender the service. The opposite party in their communication they admitted to the same. The complainant was charged with Rs.31.50 for contacting the customer care services (*333) of the opposite parties. It is the bounden duty of the telecom operator to provide the toll free number for the services and not to bill the customer while accessing the same in unfair manner. The complainant was charged for accessing the customer care number of the opposite parties inspite of the problems let unresolved at their end for quite long time.

6. The complainant decided to surrender the services of the opposite parties and they requested the complainant to give the same in writing with the 1st opposite party but they stoutly denied accepting the USB modem and refund for the same. Instead the opposite parties directed this complainant to resell the USB modem to his friends/others and refund by the opposite parties may not be possible and for which this complainant has stoutly refused to fool/cheat his friends/others unlike the opposite parties. But the complainant surrendered the service of the opposite parties. Unscrupulously the opposite parties were dispatching the bills without any delay inspite of the poor service and failure to set right the problems and among others. These only shows the unfair practice adopted, deficiency of service and the false promises made to lure the general public.

7. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavits along with Ex.A1 to A24 was marked and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte. The opp.parties was served notice on 25.2.08 for the hearing, dt.30.3.09 The opposite parties did not appear either in person or through their counsel, and have not filed any version on their side till the expiry of statutory period.

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1

8. The case of the complainant is that the complainant was attracted by the Pamphlets issued by the opposite party visited the first opposite party and decided to avail the services of the opposite party and purchased a USB Modem with sim card number 9344299262 from the 1st opposite party on 15.02.2008 for a sum of Rs. 3,180/- and availed a tariff under the scheme “Swift – 30” under which the customer can avail free usage of 15 Hours during peak hours and 30 hours under off-peak hours and for any additional usage the customer shall be charged 50 paise per minute. But the service of the opposite party was not upto the standard and not as promised. Hence this complaint.

9. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit and marked Ex.A1 to A24. Ex.A1 is the pamphlet issued by the opposite parties .The extract of relevant portion is given below:

…..

Get the winning edge over other data cards

Fastest speed & CDMA technology

High download speed of heavy e-mail attachments

Wireless internet speed upto 144 kbps

and Ex.A9 is the copy of E-mail reply issued by the 2nd opposite party in which the 2nd opposite party has admitted their mistakes. The relevant portion is given below:

“In continuation to your mail regarding the speed of Reliance Netconnect, please note that the access speed can be upto 144kbps, but in most real world situations, you can expect average speeds of 20-40 kbps.

“Though it is difficult to guarantee a minimum service speed, we assure you with our superior, high speed wireless technology and high bandwidth of an issue free access to the internet service”.



Hence we are of the view, the service of the opposite party was not upto the standard and not as promised. This was also admitted by the opposite party in his Email letter dt.5.3.2008. Not only that the complainant was charged with Rs.31.50 for contacting the customer care service(333).Thus the act and conduct of the opposite party is amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and therefore liable to pay damages and compensation.



10. In the result, we direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant the cost of the USB modem amount for a sum of Rs.3,180.00, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Sir,
i have been using reliance cdma phones from last 3 years. Few months back i got my posting in cochin.i bought a new number ie 09387224785 from reliance outlet.
Problem started here,,,in month of aug 2009, once early morning at around 3 am i got a call from reliance,,,which was playing quran in it.i got surprised to listen all that.
Same day at about 10 am i called reliance customer care and asked about the same. It was the time when i got 1st shock,,,it was told to me that my quran service has been activated,,,,when i asked that who gave the approval for putting this service on for my number...it was told that i have only done it...which i never did????

I clearly told them that it has been not done by me...and i requested them to deactivate it..representative sitting on the other side did the same..within few hours i got a message that my quran service has been deactivated...

In month of oct 2009,,i started getting messages from reliance regarding quran again,,,i then called up customer care regarding it...
It was the time when i got 2nd shock...it was told to me that quran service has been activated on my number from 15 oct 2009 and again i have been charged 30 rupees for the month...

And when i asked the customer care repesentative that who gave the request for quran service on my number,,,then there was no reply????

It is disgusting,,,totally nuisance..
Please help me out regarding this incidence...
I will be very thankful.

Dutt.

Address:-

asst comdt s dutt.
Cg kochi ctk flt,
747 sqn, ins garuda,
naval base, kochi
pin - 682004

Tarandeep Singh son of S. Harjit Singh, 143 C, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)



Vs.



1. Reliance Communications Ltd. SCO, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through the Branch Manager.



2. Reliance Web World, Reliance Communications Ltd. SCO 17, Sarabha Nagar Market, Ludhiana through the Branch Manager.



3. Reliance Communications Ltd. H. Block, First Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai, Maharashtra through Chairman.

(Opposite parties)








O R D E R




1. Complainant, who is working as a teacher purchased Data card, from opposite party no.2 after he was convinced by them qua its speed and width of the reliance network. One year rental Rs.8600/- in advance was paid to employees of opposite party no.2 Mr. Maninder, Mr. Raj. and Ms. Simran. Though full amount worked to Rs.8765/- but they gave discount of Rs.165/-. They promised receipt of Rs.8765/- after obtaining the same from the company. Subsequently, in bill they mentioned receipt of Rs.8765/- from the complainant. Thereafter connection was installed at the house of the complainant in his computer. But the network connection never worked properly, qua which many complaints were lodged with the opposite parties no.1 to 3.


Even e-mails were sent as his connection was suffering with low connectivity. Efforts of opposite party to get defect rectified failed. Hence, fed up from lackluster attitude of employees of the opposite parties, made request to all the opposite parties to take off his connection, which they did on 31.3.2008. Thereafter had been requesting company to refund his full amount of Rs.8600/-. Despite acknowledging having received Rs.8600/- vide their letter dated 6.5.2008 has failed to refund the same causing harassment to the complainant.


Then sent letter dated 14.5.2008 to opposite party no.3 for refund, had talked with officials of opposite party, sent them fax messages, who subsequently vide letter dated 30.5.2008 has denied receipt of any amount as advance rent from the complainant, which caused shock and disturbance to him, forcing to issue legal notice dated 30.5.2008 to the opposite parties for refund of advance taken from him. Till now they have not issued the refund, which according to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has sought refund of the amount with compensation of Rs.40,000/- for causing harassment, loss of business, mental agony and also claimed Rs.5500/- as litigation costs.

2. Opposite parties in their reply claimed that this Fora has no jurisdiction to try the complaint and the dispute in this case can only be decided by the arbitrator; allegations of the complainant are false, vexatious. They claimed that services provided by them in the country are one of the best. Averred that under scheme of ‘12 months’ subscription’ a data card worth Rs.2990/- is provided by the opposite party free of costs to the subscriber. Subscriber is required to pay subscription amount of Rs.7800+taxes which are not refundable as one time charges and therefore, subscriber can not claim refund of the same. Further averred that complainant subscribed to the connection, but did not make payment of Rs.8765/- or Rs.8600/- as alleged. He promises Sales Executive of the opposite party to make the payment in few days.


On such assurance, Sales representatives issued data card and connection to the complainant and got the amount of Rs.8765/- punched into the system with an impression that complainant would make payment within few days. But to utter surprise of the sales representatives, complainant never paid as promised. As amount of Rs.8765/- was punched into the system, same got reflected in the bill dated 22.3.2008 issued to the complainant. Complainant was requested many times to make payment of Rs.8765/- which he lingered on one pretext or the other. Consequently, forcing them to reverse entry of that amount in his bill dated 22.4.2008.


As in routine, on receipt of payment, receipts are issued to the subscribers against such payment. No such receipt of payment was issued to the complainant, as he had never made any payment. Complainant as such concocted false story. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Complainant was clearly intimated that he is not entitled for any refund as has not paid any advance. There is no question of humiliating or harassing the complainant. Complaint being filed on false allegations deserves dismissal.

3. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. In the light of stand of the parties, main question for determination is whether the complainant actually paid Rs.8600/- to opposite party for obtaining data card? Because installation of the data card in his computer on 14.3.2008 and removal thereof on prayer of the complainant are not disputed aspects. It is after taking off the connection on 31.3.2008 that complainant started praying opposite parties to refund advance of Rs.8600/- taken from him. Opposite parties have denied such receipt and accused the complainant obtaining data card on false promise to pay the amount subsequently but failed to pay it.


Rather, sales representative of the opposite parties on assurances of the complainant provided him connection and believing assurances punched the card, as a result receipt of amount from the complainant was reflected in his bill dated 22.3.20087 (Ex.C.12). This bill Ex.C.12 recorded that cash payment of Rs.8765/- was received from the complainant on 14.3.2008. Whether it was correctly reflected or due to trick played by the complainant?

6. Complainant for the first time vide registered letter Ex.C.5 dated 31.3.21008 had prayed opposite party no.1 to refund his full money taken as one year advance . When heard nothing, issued another registered letter Ex.C.4 dated 14.5.2008 to all the three opposite parties. On 30.5.2008, complainant issued another registered letter Ex.C.2 to all the three opposite parties requiring them to refund Rs.8600/- taken in advance out of full amount of Rs.8765/- after giving cash discount of Rs.165/-.


Opposite party for the first time vide their letter Ex.C.8 dated 6.5.2008 admitted receipt of certain amount from the complainant and requested him to collect refund of the amount. As wording of the letter would be of much significance to decide the controversy, so we are reproducing the contents of this letter Ex.C.8 as under:

This is with reference to your letter regarding the refund for your Reliance Data Card number 9316140615.



We tried to contact you on your alternate number 9872012266, but were unable to reach you.



We wish to confirm that the refund for the above number has been processed and we request you to visit our Reliance world location and collect the refund amount.



Further, our local customer care official Ms. Sunaina Sehgal (contact number-9316666695) would assist you in this regard to resolve your query.



The address of our Reliance world location is mentioned below for your reference.



7. Thus, it is clear that refund of the amount of the complainant was processed by opposite party as conveyed to him and requested him to collect the refund amount. Though there is no receipt with the complainant of paying Rs.8600/- to representative of opposite party no.1 while taking connection, but receipt of amount of Rs.8765/- was acknowledged by opposite party in their bill Ex.C.6 dated 22.3.2008 issued to the complainant. This was first admission on part of opposite party qua actual receipt of amount from the complainant.


Had the complainant committed fraud with the opposite party by promising to pay Rs.8765/- or Rs.8600/- to representative of the opposite party no.2 while taking connection on 14.3.2008, which was removed on his request on 31.3.2008, then opposite party vide their letter dated 6.5.2008 would not have admitted receipt of advance from the complainant and requested him to collect refund of the amount. This means that after 6.5.08, opposite party clearly conceded having received one year advance rent from the complainant, which they had agreed to refund. But subsequently, they changed their stand vide communication dated 27.5.2008 (Ex.C.9).


In that communication, opposite party conveyed to the complainant that they have not received cash payment of Rs.8600/- from him. What transpired between 6.5.08 to 27.5.08 forcing opposite parties to shift their own stand by denying receipt of Rs.8600/- from the complainant, we have nothing on the record. But certainly, it is apparent that opposite parties changed their stand after admitting receipt and subsequently denied the same.

8. Admission is best piece of evidence against a person making it. No proof is required to prove a point admitted. But this subsequent withdrawal of the payment by the opposite party appears to be an after thought by shifting stand to detriment of the complainant and in their own interest. Which act on the part of opposite party certainly would amount to unholy stand, amounting to deficiency in service towards own consumers.

9. Since then onward complainant had been knocking even the doors of Chairman of the OP Company qua cheating done to him by his employees at Ludhiana. Such is apparent from e-mail Ex.C.18 dated 29.3.2008 sent by him to Sh.Anil Ambani. Thereafter, sent many e-mails Ex.C.26 to C34 which were exchanged between the parties.

10. In these circumstances, affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh.Masat Ram Deswal authorised signatory of opposite party deserves to be brushed aside that no payment of Rs.8600/- was made by the complainant. As it is established from circumstances of the case complainant did pay Rs.8600/- advance to opposite party on 14.3.2008 and the connection was got removed by him on 31.3.2008. Thereafter sought refund and opposite party vide letter Ex.C.8 affirmed receipt of advance from the complainant and requested him to collect the refund.


But subsequently shifted their stand by denying such receipt in their communication Ex.C.9. In such scenario, we fall back and arrive at affidavit Ex.CW1/A of the complainant that had paid Rs.8600/- in advance but no receipt was given to him. Rather they reflected receiving Rs.8765/- in cash from him in bill Ex.C.12 dated 22.3.2008.


In such circumstances, taking of unethical stand by most leading and reputed company of the country like opposite party, is very unfortunate and deserves to be condemned with all words at our command. A big company such like opposite party should not take such meaningless and false plea to defect legitimate and right claim of poor consumers. If they resort to unfair trade practice, what will happen with small fly in the trade, we can not imagine. In the present case deficiency in service on the part of opposite party is very writ large on the face of the record. Therefore, complaint deserves to be allowed.

C. Ramakrishnan,

99A, Elango Street,

Thiruvalleeswarar Nagar,

Annanagar West,

Chennai – 600 040 Complainant



Vs.



M/S. Reliance Communications,

Local Circle Office,

71, EVK Sampath Salai,

Chennai – 600 007 : Opposite Party







O R D E R





1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

The complainant is the holder of the pre paid broad band internet service provided by the opposite party. He paid monthly subscriptions of Rs.299/-. But instead of providing pre paid connection he was provided post paid connection, which was known only when the bill was received by him. The complainant came to know through their leaflets that the opposite party have no pre paid service on 13.12.2007 and service was disconnected without notice.


But the bill dated11.12.2007 for Rs.2,663.36/- was sent. Another bill dated 11.1.2008 for Rs. 700.71/- was received with a statement of internet usage details. Whereas the data usage charges would show as Rs.610.71/- . There is no explanation for the disparity. The complainant had settled the entire bill amount on 28.02.2008 but the opposite party claimed the outstanding balance of Rs.1,126.97/- which is deficiency in service.


Without informing that the service is post paid service and contrary to his request for prepaid service, the opposite party provided post paid service which is deficiency in service. The complainant filed this complaint claiming refund of Rs.2,536/- paid by the complainant and an amount Rs. 5,000/- towards loss suffered by the complainant due to disruption of service and Rs.1000/- incurred for conveyance and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

2. The opposite party though received the notice, did not appear before this Forum. Hence he was set ex parte,

3.Proof Affidavit has been filed by the complainant Exs.A1 to Exs.A13 were marked on the side of the complainant.









4. The points that arise for considerations are:

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

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5.Point No:1

The complainant had availed the opposite party’s for Broad Band pre paid internet service. He opted for a pre paid connection at a monthly subscription of Rs.299/-+applicable service tax. The opposite party assured that they will provide prepaid connection. But on receipt of the bill, he came to know that he was provided with post paid connection. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 leaflets which would show that the opposite party have no provision for prepaid service. The representative of the opposite party induced the complainant to join the pre- paid service.


He received bill dated 11.03.2008 for Rs.3,382.08/- though his internet connection is disconnected within a month. He paid the amount for Rs.2,536/- as full and final settlement of the bill dated 11.02.2008. Ex.A5 is the copy of the bill. Ex.A9 is notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the ground that even after the disconnection of the Broad band bills were sent to him and he settled the bill dated 11.12.2007 for Rs. 2,663.36/-

The opposite party neither appeared nor filed version before this Forum and in the absence of any contra evidence on the side of the opposite party, the case of the complainant has to be accepted. On perusal of the documents, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

C. Ramakrishnan,

99A, Elango Street,

Thiruvalleeswarar Nagar,

Annanagar West,

Chennai – 600 040 Complainant



Vs.



M/S. Reliance Communications,

Local Circle Office,

71, EVK Sampath Salai,

Chennai – 600 007 : Opposite Party









O R D E R





The complainant is the holder of the pre paid broad band internet service provided by the opposite party. He paid monthly subscriptions of Rs.299/-. But instead of providing pre paid connection he was provided post paid connection, which was known only when the bill was received by him. The complainant came to know through their leaflets that the opposite party have no pre paid service on 13.12.2007 and service was disconnected without notice. But the bill dated11.12.2007 for Rs.2,663.36/- was sent. Another bill dated 11.1.2008 for Rs. 700.71/- was received with a statement of internet usage details. Whereas the data usage charges would show as Rs.610.71/- . There is no explanation for the disparity.


The complainant had settled the entire bill amount on 28.02.2008 but the opposite party claimed the outstanding balance of Rs.1,126.97/- which is deficiency in service. Without informing that the service is post paid service and contrary to his request for prepaid service, the opposite party provided post paid service which is deficiency in service. The complainant filed this complaint claiming refund of Rs.2,536/- paid by the complainant and an amount Rs. 5,000/- towards loss suffered by the complainant due to disruption of service and Rs.1000/- incurred for conveyance and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

2. The opposite party though received the notice, did not appear before this Forum. Hence he was set ex parte,

3.Proof Affidavit has been filed by the complainant Exs.A1 to Exs.A13 were marked on the side of the complainant.









4. The points that arise for considerations are:

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

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5.Point No:1

The complainant had availed the opposite party’s for Broad Band pre paid internet service. He opted for a pre paid connection at a monthly subscription of Rs.299/-+applicable service tax. The opposite party assured that they will provide prepaid connection. But on receipt of the bill, he came to know that he was provided with post paid connection. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 leaflets which would show that the opposite party have no provision for prepaid service.


The representative of the opposite party induced the complainant to join the pre- paid service. He received bill dated 11.03.2008 for Rs.3,382.08/- though his internet connection is disconnected within a month. He paid the amount for Rs.2,536/- as full and final settlement of the bill dated 11.02.2008. Ex.A5 is the copy of the bill. Ex.A9 is notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the ground that even after the disconnection of the Broad band bills were sent to him and he settled the bill dated 11.12.2007 for Rs. 2,663.36/-

The opposite party neither appeared nor filed version before this Forum and in the absence of any contra evidence on the side of the opposite party, the case of the complainant has to be accepted. On perusal of the documents, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.



6.Point No:2



In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of the complaint to the complainant. The question of refund of Rs. 2,536/- does not rise since as per Ex.A5 the amount was paid by the complainant for full and final; settlement of bill dated 11.12.2008. The complainant is not entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- claimed in clause 2 and 3 of the prayer as per section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The amounts shall be payable within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Mr.K.A. Alagarsamy

S/o. alagar Ramanajam,

No. 48-1-90 Kaloori Nagar,

Anna Nagar, Peelamedu,

Coimbatore – 641 004. --- Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. Reliance Webstores (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manger,

No. 526, 527 Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,

Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641012.

2. M/s. Reliance communications

Infrastructure Ltd., Rep. by its

Managing Director,

Regd. Office; H Block, 1st Floor,

Dhirubhai ambani knowledge City

Navi Mumbai – 400 710. --- Opposite Parties





ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay the cost of the USB modem amount for a sum of Rs.3,180.00, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The Complainant is a self styled Textile consultant. The second opposite party is a telecom operator under the trade name “Reliance Mobile” providing mobile cellular services using CDMA technology. The 1st opposite party is one of the branch offices at Coimbatore. The complainant has wired internet connectivity at his office for the purpose of his business. Apart from this the complainant opted for a wireless internet connection at his residence purely for his personal use.

2. The complainant visited 1st opposite party and they offered to provide the best of service to the complainant. The staff at the 1st opposite party explained that Reliance Net connect is featured with “High speed internet access”, “High download speed of heavy. E-mail attachments”, “Connectivity speed with 144 Kbps” and “4 times faster than dial up connection or other date cards” and so on.


Having convinced by the promises and commitments of the opposite parties the complainant decided to avail the services of the opposite parties and purchased a USB Modem with sim card number 9344299262 from the 1st opposite party on 15.02.2008 for a sum of Rs. 3,180/- and availed a tariff under the scheme “Swift – 30” under which the customer can avail free usage of 15 Hours during peak hours and 30 hours under off-peak hours and for any additional usage the customer shall be charged 50 paise per minute.

3. After two days the connection was activated i.e. on 17.02.2008 the complainant could get the service connected with his desktop computer at his house but unable to connect to his laptop which has Windows Vista Operating System and it displayed the following service/error messages



1) Symantec. Com is not setup to establish a connection on part world wide web service (HTTP) with this computer.

2) Windows found a problem that cannot be repaired automatically. Contact your internet provider or network administrator for help”



and the present details were communicated to the customer care of the opposite parties over phone and by e-mail on many occasions and they were very lethargic with their response right from the first instance. With no other go the complainant had made personal visit to office of the 1st opposite party with his laptop but the service staffs attached to them were unable to resolve the issue till 19th February 2008, and finally they informed the complainant to register the complaint at customer care number *333.

4. At the customer care the complaint was registered and they provided a mobile number of one Mr. Krishna. When the complainant contacted Mr. Krishna he was too agitated to speak and did not even listen at last on 29.02.2008 it was made ready by the service personal from the opposite parties. But system provided by the opposite parties Viz. the USB did not prove worthy, the speed of the system was poor at all times it could get connected only to a maximum of 30 kbps and not 144 kbps as committed by the opposite parties. It invariably connects to all the web sites even at late hours with the speed at 3 Kbps to 28 Kbps and not even once the connectivity speed was 144 Kbps as committed by inspite of the system configuration being P-IV, 2 GB RAM and 3.06 MHz speed which are more than the recommendation provided by the opposite parties.

5. This issue of poor speed was taken up with the opposite parties many times and at last the complainant got much dissatisfied and finally decided to surrender the service. The opposite party in their communication they admitted to the same. The complainant was charged with Rs.31.50 for contacting the customer care services (*333) of the opposite parties. It is the bounden duty of the telecom operator to provide the toll free number for the services and not to bill the customer while accessing the same in unfair manner. The complainant was charged for accessing the customer care number of the opposite parties inspite of the problems let unresolved at their end for quite long time.

6. The complainant decided to surrender the services of the opposite parties and they requested the complainant to give the same in writing with the 1st opposite party but they stoutly denied accepting the USB modem and refund for the same. Instead the opposite parties directed this complainant to resell the USB modem to his friends/others and refund by the opposite parties may not be possible and for which this complainant has stoutly refused to fool/cheat his friends/others unlike the opposite parties.


But the complainant surrendered the service of the opposite parties. Unscrupulously the opposite parties were dispatching the bills without any delay inspite of the poor service and failure to set right the problems and among others. These only shows the unfair practice adopted, deficiency of service and the false promises made to lure the general public.

7. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavits along with Ex.A1 to A24 was marked and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte. The opp.parties was served notice on 25.2.08 for the hearing, dt.30.3.09 The opposite parties did not appear either in person or through their counsel, and have not filed any version on their side till the expiry of statutory period.

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1

8. The case of the complainant is that the complainant was attracted by the Pamphlets issued by the opposite party visited the first opposite party and decided to avail the services of the opposite party and purchased a USB Modem with sim card number 9344299262 from the 1st opposite party on 15.02.2008 for a sum of Rs. 3,180/- and availed a tariff under the scheme “Swift – 30” under which the customer can avail free usage of 15 Hours during peak hours and 30 hours under off-peak hours and for any additional usage the customer shall be charged 50 paise per minute. But the service of the opposite party was not upto the standard and not as promised. Hence this complaint.

9. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit and marked Ex.A1 to A24. Ex.A1 is the pamphlet issued by the opposite parties .The extract of relevant portion is given below:

…..

Get the winning edge over other data cards

Fastest speed & CDMA technology

High download speed of heavy e-mail attachments

Wireless internet speed upto 144 kbps

and Ex.A9 is the copy of E-mail reply issued by the 2nd opposite party in which the 2nd opposite party has admitted their mistakes. The relevant portion is given below:

“In continuation to your mail regarding the speed of Reliance Netconnect, please note that the access speed can be upto 144kbps, but in most real world situations, you can expect average speeds of 20-40 kbps.

“Though it is difficult to guarantee a minimum service speed, we assure you with our superior, high speed wireless technology and high bandwidth of an issue free access to the internet service”.



Hence we are of the view, the service of the opposite party was not upto the standard and not as promised. This was also admitted by the opposite party in his Email letter dt.5.3.2008. Not only that the complainant was charged with Rs.31.50 for contacting the customer care service(333).Thus the act and conduct of the opposite party is amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and therefore liable to pay damages and compensation.



10. In the result, we direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant the cost of the USB modem amount for a sum of Rs.3,180.00, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Mr.K.A. Alagarsamy

S/o. alagar Ramanajam,

No. 48-1-90 Kaloori Nagar,

Anna Nagar, Peelamedu,

Coimbatore – 641 004. --- Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. Reliance Webstores (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manger,

No. 526, 527 Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,

Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641012.

2. M/s. Reliance communications

Infrastructure Ltd., Rep. by its

Managing Director,

Regd. Office; H Block, 1st Floor,

Dhirubhai ambani knowledge City

Navi Mumbai – 400 710. --- Opposite Parties





ORDER


The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The Complainant is a self styled Textile consultant. The second opposite party is a telecom operator under the trade name “Reliance Mobile” providing mobile cellular services using CDMA technology. The 1st opposite party is one of the branch offices at Coimbatore. The complainant has wired internet connectivity at his office for the purpose of his business. Apart from this the complainant opted for a wireless internet connection at his residence purely for his personal use.

2. The complainant visited 1st opposite party and they offered to provide the best of service to the complainant. The staff at the 1st opposite party explained that Reliance Net connect is featured with “High speed internet access”, “High download speed of heavy. E-mail attachments”, “Connectivity speed with 144 Kbps” and “4 times faster than dial up connection or other date cards” and so on.


Having convinced by the promises and commitments of the opposite parties the complainant decided to avail the services of the opposite parties and purchased a USB Modem with sim card number 9344299262 from the 1st opposite party on 15.02.2008 for a sum of Rs. 3,180/- and availed a tariff under the scheme “Swift – 30” under which the customer can avail free usage of 15 Hours during peak hours and 30 hours under off-peak hours and for any additional usage the customer shall be charged 50 paise per minute.

3. After two days the connection was activated i.e. on 17.02.2008 the complainant could get the service connected with his desktop computer at his house but unable to connect to his laptop which has Windows Vista Operating System and it displayed the following service/error messages



1) Symantec. Com is not setup to establish a connection on part world wide web service (HTTP) with this computer.

2) Windows found a problem that cannot be repaired automatically. Contact your internet provider or network administrator for help”



and the present details were communicated to the customer care of the opposite parties over phone and by e-mail on many occasions and they were very lethargic with their response right from the first instance. With no other go the complainant had made personal visit to office of the 1st opposite party with his laptop but the service staffs attached to them were unable to resolve the issue till 19th February 2008, and finally they informed the complainant to register the complaint at customer care number *333.

4. At the customer care the complaint was registered and they provided a mobile number of one Mr. Krishna. When the complainant contacted Mr. Krishna he was too agitated to speak and did not even listen at last on 29.02.2008 it was made ready by the service personal from the opposite parties.


But system provided by the opposite parties Viz. the USB did not prove worthy, the speed of the system was poor at all times it could get connected only to a maximum of 30 kbps and not 144 kbps as committed by the opposite parties. It invariably connects to all the web sites even at late hours with the speed at 3 Kbps to 28 Kbps and not even once the connectivity speed was 144 Kbps as committed by inspite of the system configuration being P-IV, 2 GB RAM and 3.06 MHz speed which are more than the recommendation provided by the opposite parties.

5. This issue of poor speed was taken up with the opposite parties many times and at last the complainant got much dissatisfied and finally decided to surrender the service. The opposite party in their communication they admitted to the same. The complainant was charged with Rs.31.50 for contacting the customer care services (*333) of the opposite parties.


It is the bounden duty of the telecom operator to provide the toll free number for the services and not to bill the customer while accessing the same in unfair manner. The complainant was charged for accessing the customer care number of the opposite parties inspite of the problems let unresolved at their end for quite long time.

6. The complainant decided to surrender the services of the opposite parties and they requested the complainant to give the same in writing with the 1st opposite party but they stoutly denied accepting the USB modem and refund for the same. Instead the opposite parties directed this complainant to resell the USB modem to his friends/others and refund by the opposite parties may not be possible and for which this complainant has stoutly refused to fool/cheat his friends/others unlike the opposite parties.


But the complainant surrendered the service of the opposite parties. Unscrupulously the opposite parties were dispatching the bills without any delay inspite of the poor service and failure to set right the problems and among others. These only shows the unfair practice adopted, deficiency of service and the false promises made to lure the general public.

7. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavits along with Ex.A1 to A24 was marked and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte. The opp.parties was served notice on 25.2.08 for the hearing, dt.30.3.09 The opposite parties did not appear either in person or through their counsel, and have not filed any version on their side till the expiry of statutory period.

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1

8. The case of the complainant is that the complainant was attracted by the Pamphlets issued by the opposite party visited the first opposite party and decided to avail the services of the opposite party and purchased a USB Modem with sim card number 9344299262 from the 1st opposite party on 15.02.2008 for a sum of Rs. 3,180/- and availed a tariff under the scheme “Swift – 30” under which the customer can avail free usage of 15 Hours during peak hours and 30 hours under off-peak hours and for any additional usage the customer shall be charged 50 paise per minute. But the service of the opposite party was not upto the standard and not as promised. Hence this complaint.

9. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit and marked Ex.A1 to A24. Ex.A1 is the pamphlet issued by the opposite parties .The extract of relevant portion is given below:

…..

Get the winning edge over other data cards

Fastest speed & CDMA technology

High download speed of heavy e-mail attachments

Wireless internet speed upto 144 kbps

and Ex.A9 is the copy of E-mail reply issued by the 2nd opposite party in which the 2nd opposite party has admitted their mistakes. The relevant portion is given below:

“In continuation to your mail regarding the speed of Reliance Netconnect, please note that the access speed can be upto 144kbps, but in most real world situations, you can expect average speeds of 20-40 kbps.

“Though it is difficult to guarantee a minimum service speed, we assure you with our superior, high speed wireless technology and high bandwidth of an issue free access to the internet service”.



Hence we are of the view, the service of the opposite party was not upto the standard and not as promised. This was also admitted by the opposite party in his Email letter dt.5.3.2008. Not only that the complainant was charged with Rs.31.50 for contacting the customer care service(333).Thus the act and conduct of the opposite party is amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and therefore liable to pay damages and compensation.



10. In the result, we direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant the cost of the USB modem amount for a sum of Rs.3,180.00, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Appeal no. FA-9/793

(Appeal against the order dated 19.08.2009 passed by District Forum-III, Janakpuri, in complaint case no.637/2007)

Basant Kohli

RZ-686-B/2, Main Road, Indra Park,

Palam Colony, New Delhi-45.

…..Appellant/complainant.

Present in person.

VS



1. Sanjay Mittal, Prop. Annapurana Telecom,

A-1/45 A, Sewak Park, Main Dwarka,

Near Metro Station, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.



2. Zonal Office Delhi : Reliance Communications,

1718, DDA Commercial Reliance Office Complex,

Panchsheel Park, Delhi.



3 Customer Care,

Reliance Communications,

DA.K.C. Sane Belapur Road,

Navi Mumbai-400709


……Respondents/O.Ps

CORAM

Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President.

M.L. Sahni, Member

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the

judgment?



2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

M.L. SAHNI, MEMBER



1. This appeal directed against the order dated 19.7.2009 passed by District Forum , Janakpuri, New Delhi has been filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as appellant) of case no. 637/07. The compliant had been dismissed on preliminary issue that the complainant/appellant is not a “consumer” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the appellant/complainant got installed 2 STD/PCO terminals at his premises,-one in his own name and the other in the name of his wife. It is alleged by the appellant/complainant that both the terminals had been taken- away for repairs by the agents of the respondent/OP-, without issuing any receipt, who never returned the same despite, he made earnest efforts and various requests to the officers of the respondent/OP-1. The appellant / complainant further stated that the STD/PCO terminals were the only source of livelihood for him and his entire family, and, therefore, the respondent/Ops be directed to return the terminals.

3. As against these allegations the respondent/OP-1 stated that they are distributors of RCIL , PCO division and they installed the STD/PCO at the request of the appellant/complainant. According to them the appellant/complainant despite having recharged the terminals for two months, never paid the money for the recharging and later on requested the respondent/OP to take back terminals as it was viable for him to run the PCO/STD on profit. Accordingly, the connection was suspended after two months of installation, and some balance refundable, but the same had to be forfeited . The respondent/OP-1 however, got it refunded to the appellant /complainant. When the refunded money was offered to the appellant/complainant, he refused to accept the same against receipt.

4. Other respondent/OPs also contested the complaint and raised the preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the complaint, alleging inter-alia, that function of the appellant/complainant was in fact rendering services to the franchisers on commission basis ; that since he had not been hiring services of the OP, he was not a “consumer” , as defined under the Act.

5. The appellant/complainant rebutted their version by saying that there was no agreement of franchise between him and the respondent/OPs.

6. We have heard the Appellant/complainant in person and perused the impugned order. We have also examined the material on record. It is admitted case of the appellant/complainant that he had not been given any receipt, when the terminals had been taken away by the agents of the respondent/OP-1.

7. The Ld. District Forum has found from the conduct of the parties that there existed relationship of franchisee and franchiser between the appellant/complainant and the respondent/OP. As is evident that the appellant/complainant had merely been working for the company dealing with public on behalf of company and had been collecting money after dealing with customers on commission basis. From this fact the Ld. District Forum concluded that the appellant/complainant had been rendering services to the customers on behalf of company and not that he had been hiring services of the Respondent/OP. Accordingly, it was held that the appellant/complainant did not fall within the definition of “consumer” as provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the appellant/complainant as against these findings. We have failed to be convinced that the appellant/complainant could at all be a “consumer” as defined under the Act. We do not find any infirmity or fault in the impugned order and therefore there is no reason for us to interfere with the findings recorded by the Ld. District Forum. The appeal, therefore, being without any substance , merits dismissed. Hence the same is dismissed in limine at the preliminary stage of admission.

9. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and , thereafter , the file be consigned to Record Room.

Hi

I got a new relaince net connect data card and it took 2 weeks for activation of this card. After a lot of frustrating talking with non helping customer care , my card got activated and few days after that they have again suspended my card .The reason I am given is that there was some problem in my verification ... how can u activate my fone and then deactivate without PRIOR INFORMATION .I assume once the card is activated it means all verifications are done . I was not even intimated tht my card will be deactivated .
From past 5 days I am talking to the customer care people but no response and no support as well.. Relaince net connect is the most horrible broad band service provider in india.

what can I do now as they have already sold their netconnect modem and I will get regular bill as well . what are my rights ?
Regards
Promila Mattu - promila.mattu@gmail.com

Dear Sir/Madam

My name is Amed Kumar.I am facing some problem with the Reliance SMS service. The
company is deducting Rs. 5.00 daily for the Cricket alert pack for which i didn't
ask.I have talked to the customer care executives naming Rajbir, Mukta, Minakshi
instead of solving my problem they all are giving same reason that i had asked for
this service. But i have told them several times that i didn't ask for this service
and they are contineously deducting Rs. 5 from my prepaid account.They asked me to
send a SMS to unsubscribe and i did the same. I got the message from Reliance
company that they have unsubscribe the service but still they are deducting the
money from my account. I have got the all the SMS received from them of
unsubcription.


Kindly sort out this matter as i am suffuring a lot due to the unhelpful behaviour
of reliance company.

Thanking you



Amed Kumar

9350252497

Dear team,
I'm not able to reg a complaint on your site against reliance.
I also mailed nodal officer of Mumbai for Relaince and filed complaint on customer
care. but i'm not getting any help.
I'm sending you a copy of mail I send to nodal officer
Kindly let me know what i can do now.
Dear Sir/mam,

On 05th Nov 09 I vivited Reliance Communications vighnahar Infotech B-9 Amrita
Sadan, Sectior-22 Nerul(west) Navi Mumbai 400706 office to buy 2 new post paid
connections of my choice i.e. 8080150685 and 8080080682.
But Mr Vipul Bansal (+919321067677) an executive of that office gave me 2 temp nos
as 9022779522 and 9022778364 and told me taht in 24 hrs it will change to no choosen
by me.
but till date it is not done.

and when I requested for recipt of amount I paid to buy 2 connections i.e. Rs.700/-
he said reliance does not give recipt for SIM Card and refused me.

and after 2-3 days services of my both numbers were get blocked. for this when I
visited that office he spoke with me very rudly and told me to speak on *222
customer care because he can not do anything. When I spook on *222 they people told
me my documents are not yet submitted by R COM office and after that I visited Nerul
office more than 15 times for the same reason and 3 times I gave my documents to
them to submit.
Last time when I visited Vipul said me to contat Main office In Bandra to get my
amount refund or to activate my SIM.
Also I filed Complaint to Mr Nilesh(floor Superviser) On *222 with Complaint No
113825640 and 113825991.
Even before that also I filed many complaint I have all complaint nos with me.
But still I have not recived any call from Reliance to infor me what the hell is
going on.
And I dont have time to visit every Reliance Office daily and to call *222.
if Reliane will not activate my SIM or give my money back I will file FIR against
this matter on Monday anyhow.

Kindly Let me know If you people can help me or not.

Thank You

Regards,
Arun Yadav
+919699663966
+919870536566