Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 237
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Reliance Communications

  1. #1
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default Reliance Communications

    C.C.No.73/2008

    Venkitesh.C.D
    S/o. C.R. Devarajan
    Saravanabhava
    Moopankulam
    Pattancherry.P.O.
    Palakkad. - Complainant
    (Party in person )
    V/s

    1. Reliance Communications Ltd
    26 & 27 Mangalam Towers
    Opp. Town Bus Stand
    T B Road
    Palakkad.
    (Adv. Jayan.C. Thomas )

    2. Ramesh.S
    Reliance Communication Ltd
    Dee Pee Plaza, Ist Floor
    Opp. Sidhartha Regency
    Kokalai
    Thrissur. - Opposite Parties
    (Adv. Jayan.C. Thomas)

    O R D E R
    By Smt. H. Seena, President
    Brief facts of the complaint is regarding disconnection of telephone service. Complainant is a customer of Reliance for using land phone for internet connection. Phone number allotted to the complainant is 04923 – 322707. During March 2008, bill date was changed from 27th to 5th of the month. Out going service was cancelled on 6th March 2008 preceeding a message that the complainant was supposed to pay Rs.1755.64 to activate the outgoing calls. The very next day there was another message mentioning the amount to be paid as Rs.1129.14 . The credit limit at that time was Rs.1300/-. After further enquiries with the Reliance, complainant came to understand that the amount to be paid is Rs.1129.04 and not 1755.64. The mistake was admitted by Reliance. Complainant wanted to activate the outgoing calls since he has not crossed the credit limit. But the Reliance insisted on payment of the amount first. Complainant received the bill only after 1 week of disconnection of phone. Instead of solving the problem, Opposite party
    2 sent a notice dated 08/05/2008. The notice mentioned that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.1128/- as on 08/05/08 to avoid any further consequences. Complainant made payment of Rs.1200/- on 21/05/08. Complainant is aggrieved by the fact that even after payment of the bill amount Reliance has not activated the outgoing calls. Again the Reliance issued bills for the months of April and May for which the complainant has not availed any service.. Reliance issued another notice dated 05/06/2008 demanding payment of Rs.793/-. It mentioned that the complainant is using a mobile phone with No.9388726123. Actually the complainant was allotted with a land phone with No.04923-322707. Complainant wanted to return the telephone and terminate the association with the opposite parties. But the Reliance are not refunding the deposit amount of Rs.500/-. According to the complainant, the act of the opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency of service. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.50,500 /- as compensation.


    Even though the Opposite partied entered appearance and filed vakalth, no version or affidavits was filed.
    Evidence adduced consists of the affidavits and Exhibit A1 to A7 from the side of the complainant . Land phone containing the messages was marked as MO1


    Issues for consideration are

    1. whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Reliance?
    2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?



    The case of the complainant is proved by Exhibits A1 to A7 documentsand MO1, Where the messages issued by the Opposite parties were included. It is evident from Exhibit A2 that the bill amount was paid by the complainant on 21/05/2005. The opposite parties has not adduced any evidence to contradict the evidence tendered by the complainant. Hence the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged.


    In view of the above circumstances we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the side of the Reliance.


    In the result, complaint allowed. Reliance is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the
    3
    order failing which the whole amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.


    Pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd day of March 2009.

  2. #2
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default


    IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN

    No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020

    consumer case(CC) No. CC/1138/2008

    B.Krishna Prasad,
    ...........Appellant(s)
    Vs.

    M/s. Reliance Communications Ltd.,

    The Officer in charge, M/s. Reliance communications Customer Care Department
    ...........Respondent(s)


    ORDER



    COMPLAINT NO: 1138 OF 2008

    B. Krishna Prasad,
    S/o Late Balakrishna Prasad,
    Prasad Tyres & Lubricants, 112/179,
    Seppings Road, Bangalore 01.

    Complainant


    V/S 1.

    M/s Reliance Communications Ltd., (Formerly M/s. Reliance Infocom Limited) No.2, III Floor, Janardhan Towers, Residency Road, Bangalore 01. 2. The Officer in Charge, M/s Reliance Communications Customer Care Development, No.121, II Floor, Dickenson Road, Next to Manipal Centre, Bangalore-42. Opposite Parties

    ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to return the excess amount and Rs. 90,000/-as compensation. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the customer of Reliance, using mobile services vide Telephone bearing No.9341212347, DAE No.22794131 billing A/c No.2022115035 since 2003. The initial scheme was POFI, and subsequently on 01/12/2003 the complainant availed the scheme of DAPO which continued till 01/04/2004 and thereafter the plan was got changed to DEMR from 01/05/2004 which was in force till 31/01/2006 and the said plan was very much convenient to his needs. Soon after 31/01/2006 the said DEMR plan came to be changed to NJ 149 which is without any prior notice to him, and the said plan also once again came to be changed to another scheme DELIGHT-499 from 01/08.2006 even the said change of plan was also made without any notice to him, and the Reliance called upon him to pay the deposit of Rs.1,122/- as scheme charges plus rental charges, for the scheme which I have not sought for.

    The act of the Reliance is highly arbitrary and an unfair trade practice opted to make wrongful gain and causing loss to him. Due to change of plan he was suffering loss. At the time of availing the connection he has paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3,000/- vide cheque No.156245 dated 24/01/2003 and the opposite parties have received 12 post dated cheques for Rs.1,800/- each. The opposite parties have utterly failed to provide the proper serviced to him in spite of the fact that there was no default on his part. Hence, the complainant. 2. Notice issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties put in their appearance through Advocate and filed defence version stating that the complainant had availed the telephone services provided by the Reliance to carry on his business and has availed telephone services for the usage in the course of its business and therefore the services availed by him are for commercial purposes and therefore the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Reliance are not aware of the activities carried out by the complainant or the business run by him.

    The Reliance company is dealing with business of providing Telecommunication Services to the public at large and has introduced various schemes and tariff plans beneficial to its subscribers and customers are free to choose the services under the tariff opted by them. The A/c number given by the complainant is wrong and the correct A/c number of the complainant’s connection is 2002115035.

    The DAE agreement was entered by the complainant with opposite parties and the same is already terminated long back in 2003 itself and he is no more a DAE. The complainant became a subscriber to the service provided by the Reliance taking benefit of “Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer Offer”(DAPO), after entering into a valid concluded contract with opposite parties. Under the DAPO scheme the payment option selected by the complainant was ROFI, wherein he had made initial upfront payment as club membership charges of Rs.3,000/- for the entire three years of contract period, with financing option of taking loan from M/s Reliance Capital Limited and issuing 12 post dated quarterly cheques of Rs.1,800/- each. It is pertinent to note that when the complainant opted to become a DAE, the Reliance company to help him in facilitating in the procurement work to improve business of the company, had put him to DEMR plan which is available too dealers of the company. There is no agreement between the opposite parties and the complainant that they will provide DEMR plan to the complainant.

    But, only as an incentive the said plan was allotted to DAES. The DAE agreement was terminated in the year 2003 itself and also the deposit amount paid by the complainant towards to the said entrepreneurship was refunded to him. A copy of the SAP statement showing the refund of Rs.10,000/- is produced as per Annexure-R3. But, though the agreement was terminated the complainant has used the service connection under DEMR plan till the year 2006 i.e., till the end of the contract entered for service as per PAF dated 24/01/2003.

    The offer duration was 3 years and after completion of three years, customers had wide options to get there plan migrated to other plans especially introduced for the benefit of the DAPO customer or to continue in the same tariff plan of DAPO.
    The complainant being well aware of all the facts, has tried the other plans and when he grasped the DEMR plan is the most beneficial one, is trying to create a story by making false allegations to get the said plan. The complainant can opt to any plan available in the market, which is beneficial to his requirements and in which, tariff rates are nominal and suitable to his requirements.

    The complainant is using the services without any interruption and regular payments made by complainant without any whisper shows that there is no negligence with regard to the services. The complainant has enjoyed the services provided by the Reliance under DEMR plan for his personal usage even after termination of DAE agreement, by making and receiving thousands of calls and now, willfully making to false claim against the Reliance. In view of all these reasons stated above, the Reliance have prayed to dismiss the complaint.

    3. Both the parties filed affidavit evidence. Arguments are heard.

    4. The point for consideration is:- “Whether there was any deficiency in service part of the Reliance?” REASONS

    5. It is the case of the complainant that, he is a social worker involved himself in various social activities conducting various medical camps, meditation for the needy parsons. He is connected with Anniappa Charities which is engaged in giving education, training in music and welfare of the poor. The complainant is also Secretary of Seva Nikethan of Rural Development Center which is engaged in non-formal education and yoga training for the good and happiness of all. The objectives of Seva Nikethan are to educate people in Yogic health, to empower people through non-formal education, to inculcate scientific thinking free from superstitions and dogmas, to provide a common place for collective meditation and to create awareness about health and hygiene. The beneficiaries of the Seva Nikethan are all people in the respective area irrespective of caste, creed, religion or sex.

    The complainant argued in person, he had not engaged an Advocate on his behalf. Complainant submitted that he is a social worker and participated in so many social works. He has produced certificate of appreciation given by Amrut Global Secretary-ACB, Sri. Shyamsunder Goenka.

    The certificate states that Sri. B. Krishnaprasad rendered commendable service in assisting the District Administration in Tsunami Relief Measures.

    Another certificate of appreciation produced issued by Director of Rural Development, Chennai, Dr. M Rajaram, I.A.S. Complainant is one of the customers of the opposite party using mobile services bearing No.9341212347. He is an honoured customer of the opposite party company. The complainant submitted that on 01/12/2003 he had availed the scheme called DAPO which is continued till 01/04/2004 and the said plan was got changed to DEMR from 01/05/2004 which was in force till 31/01/2006 and the complainant submitted that the said scheme/plan was very much convenient to his needs. After 31/01/2006 the DEMR plan came to be changed to NJ 149 which is without any prior notice and the said plan changed to another scheme called DELIGHT-499.

    This change of plan was also made without giving notice to him. Complainant submitted that opposite party is acting on its whelms and fancies and the act of the Reliance is highly arbitrary and unfair. The case of the complainant is that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not intimating him regarding changes of plan.

    The complainant had been correspondence with the Reliance and he got issued legal notice to the opposite party highlighting all the issues. The complainant has prayed that opposite party may be directed to restore the original DEMR plan and return the excess amount that has been collected from him from 01/02/2006. The learned Advocate for the opposite party submitted that the DEMR plan or DAPO-1 plan re no more in existence. Therefore, it is not possible to restore the DEMR or DAPO to the complainant.

    The learned counsel submitted that company is entitled to change or withdraw any service at its discretion for one or more or of its subscribers. No doubt the company has got right to withdraw or change the services but the discretion shall not be exercised arbitrarily. Before changing plan or service the company should follow the Rules of Natural Justice.

    Admittedly, the Reliance has not intimated the change of plan. No consent of the complainant is obtained for change of plan. Therefore, the Reliance had violated the Principles of Natural Justice. Under the terms and conditions 3(v) the Company is entitled to change the scheme or service except in the case of discounts or other special benefits or schemes/plans announced by the company from time to time. So under this rule the plan announced by the company having a special benefit cannot be withdrawn or changed without informing the subscribers.

    The complainant has produced a recent bill in respect of a subscriber by name Ananth Padma. The bill is dated 22/07/2008 in respect of bill No.321889708639 and Mobile No.9342500664. Plan name is mentioned as DAPO-1 in the said bill. When this is the case the arguments of learned counsel for the Reliance that DAPO-1 plan has been withdrawn are not in existence cannot be accepted. When the company had given benefit of plan DAPO-1 to another customer the same benefit or plan can be given to the complainant in this case also. The complainant prayed that Reliance be directed to restore BEMR plan. During the course of argument the complainant submitted that DAPO-1 plan and DEMR plan are one and the same. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in restoring the DAPO-1 to the complainant.

    A Consumer is the most important visitor to the premises of the service provider. He is not dependent on the service provider, on the other hand the service providers are dependent on him. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislator intended to protect better interest of the consumers. The enactment is a social measure intended to protect the exploitation of big business houses. If the earlier plan provided to the complainant is restored to him, no injustice will cause to the Reliance. Therefore, the opposite party can be directed to restore BEMR plan or DAPO-1 plan to the complainant.

    The complainant has prayed for return of excess amount collected from him from 01/02/2006. But the complainant has not come up with a clear picture. He has not specified any specific amount. He has not given any details of the amount collected from him from 01/02/2006. When the complainant has not come with clear case of refund he has not produced any documents or proof as to how much amount has been collected on account of change of plan. Therefore, without there being any details and proper proof and evidence the second relief asked by the complainant cannot be granted.

    The third relief asked by the complainant is for award of Rs.90,000/- for mental and physical agony on account of change of plan. There is no basis to claim compensation of Rs.90,000/-. The complainant has not proved that he has suffered loss of Rs.90,000/- on account of change of plan. It is not justified and proper to award compensation of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant. Therefore, the third prayer sought by the complainant cannot be granted. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The Complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party company is directed to restore the DEMR plan or DAPO-1 plan to the mobile services bearing No. 9341212347 of the complainant forthwith. 7. The complainant is entitled for Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of the present proceedings from Reliance.

  3. #3
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default Reliance

    1
    Sri Balakrishna Shenoy,
    Aged about 47 years,
    S/o K.Vasudeva Shenoy,
    Residing at “Dwaraka”,
    Anantha Nagar,
    IInd Stage, Manipal,
    Udupi Taluk and District.

    (Sri Ganesh Salian, Advocate for the Complainant)
    …………. Complainant
    Versus

    1. Reliance Info Tech Ltd.,
    Regd. Office, Reliance House,
    Near Mardia Plaza,
    Off C.G.Road,
    Ahmedabad – 380006.

    2. Reliance Communications Ltd.,
    H-Block, Ist Floor, Dhirubai Ambani,
    Knowledge City,
    New Delhi – 400710.

    3. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd.,
    (Ms Mary Chandarashekar, Nodal Officer)
    Reliance House, 8th Mile Stone, Hesargatta Cross,
    N.H.4, Tumkur Road, Peenya, Bangalore – 57.

    4. Reliance Infocom Ltd.,
    Plaza Towers, 2nd Floor, Opp.Syndicate Bank,
    L.H.H. Road, Hampankatte, Mangalore – 1.

    5. Reliance Web World,
    Court Road, Udupi.

    (Sri K.C.Shetty, Advocate for the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5))
    Opposite Parties
    WRITTEN BY SRI P.C.GOPAL, PRESIDENT

    1. The Complainant has filed this complaint alleging Unfair Trade Practice which in turn amounts to deficiency in service and prayed for a direction to the Reliance to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant towards the mental agony, harassment undergone by the Complainant with interest at 12% per annum plus cost of the complaint.

    2. The case of the complainant is that he had availed the mobile services of Reliance network since past few years. The mobile number of the Complainant is 9342749392 and this connection had national roaming facility by which he was able to receive and make calls whenever traveling outside Karnataka State (home location) also.

    3. As the Complainant wanted international roaming facility, he had made advance deposit of Rs.4,000/- through cash on 12.10.2007 against receipt No.S078101563, for availing international roaming facility. The Opposite Party No.5 had informed the Complainant that the facility would be activated.

    4. The Complainant received a bill bearing No.291909012542 dated 01.11.2007 from the Reliance for the month of October 2007. There was a complete wrong calculation in this bill which claimed a sum of Rs.7,818.43 instead of actual payable amount of Rs.3,818.43. This was due to wrong debit of Rs.4,000/- instead of credit (for cash receipt) of Rs.4,000/- in the Complainant’s account. The matter was immediately brought to the notice of the 5th Opposite Party, who is the local representative of the mobile network. They promised to set right the matter before the due date for payment of the bill i.e. 22.11.2007.

    5. The Complainant observed in Goa that the national roaming facility which he was enjoying was disabled. Immediately (on 15.11.2007) a complaint was lodged with the customer care (*333) during which it was also informed to the Complainant that the payment was due and hence service is disconnected. The complainant had again informed at this juncture about wrong bill, previous complaint, advance payment and the availability of due date for payment (till 22.11.2007). The Complainant then left for New Delhi via Goa on 15.11.2007, but the phone was not functioning due to deactivation of national roaming facility by the Opposite Party No.1 without any justification, intimation and requisition. Again on 16.11.2007, the friends at Udupi and wife of the Complainant Mrs.Asha Shenoy kept pursuing "Reliance" Opposite Party No.5 at Udupi for immediate restoration of connectivity by rectifying the mistakes of Opposite Parties. All the requests were ignored by the Reliance and the Complainant’s connection was not activated. Further, the Complainant had also approached the Reliance service centre at New Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi on 17.11.2007 with the complaint. but they also refused to do justice to the Complainant in spite of knowing the wrong debit made in Complainant’s account by the Opposite Parties. As this service centre at New Delhi assured the Complainant of reconnection in case payment is made to bring down the claimed amount by the Reliance, the Complainant made further payment of Rs.1,000/- under protest as he had to be in touch with his family and friends. To the utter surprise of the Complainant the connection was not restored.

    6. The Complainant submits that due to the excess billing by the Reliance, he had to undergo disconnection of service leading to great hardship, agony and harassment due to non-functioning of his mobile network.

    7. The Complainant left abroad, the family members of the Complainant had made several complaints to "Reliance" Opposite Party No.5 who is a local representative and also payment of the entire bill amount (wrong claim), on 19.11.2007 amounting to Rs.3,818/- under protest against Receipt No.S081618159. This payment was made to make sure that the connection is activated and further difficulties to the Complainant is avoided. The Complainant later approached 5th Opposite Party "Reliance" seeking call details made from 2nd week of October 2007. But his request is avoided on one pretext or the other.

    8. The Complainant later got issued a lawyer’s regd. notice dated 18.3.2008 calling upon the Opposite Parties "Reliance" to pay damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The notice was duly served on the Opposite Parties "Reliance". The Opposite Parties "Reliance" have sent a reply notice dated 15.4.2008. The matter narrated in the said reply notice is absolutely misguiding, however the attachment forwarded in the reply proves the negligence caused by the Opposite Parties "Reliance". The Opposite Parties have totally ignored their responsibilities for having disrupted the national facility enjoyed by the Complainant since years by making legitimate payment. The bill No.291679898848 dated 1.7.2007 confirms the National Roaming facility enjoyed by the Complainant. Further the said documents also prove instead of showing credit of Rs.4,000/- the Reliance have shown debit. Hence this complaint alleging “Unfair Trade Practice” which in turn amounts to “deficiency in service”. Hence this complaint

    After service of notice of the complaint, Opposite Parties No.2 to 5 "Reliance" appeared through their counsel and filed the version. Notice to Opposite Party No.1 served, but remained absent, hence placed exparte. Opposite Parties No.2 to 5 contended that the complaint is false, frivolous and not maintainable and the Complainant has come out with a false claim to make unlawful gain at the cost of the Opposite Parties. Complainant has made allegations against service provider by M/s Reliance Communication Limited, the licence holder from Govt. of India to provide telecommunication services, the Opposite Parties are represented by their constituted attorney Sri K.S.Gopinath.

    It is submitted that the Complainant had subscribed for the telecommunication service provided by the 2nd Opposite Party in the year 2003 but it is misleaded to state that the said connection had national roaming facility by which Complainant was able to receive and make calls whenever traveling outside Karnataka. The Opposite Parties admits that the Complainant had paid Rs.4,000/- on 12.10.2007 as ILD deposit i.e. for international roaming facility. Further it is true that the 5th Opposite Party had informed that the facility would be activated and accordingly IR was activated to Complainant service connection on 13.10.2007.

    The Opposite Parties submit that it is false to state that there was a complete wrong calculation in the bill dated 1.11.2007, the Complainant is trying to take the undue advantage of the debit of deposit paid by him in the statement of service charges. Since the amount of Rs.4,000/- was paid as deposit the same was debited to his account and credited subsequently and amount was adjusted towards the bill outstanding/usage the said debit and credit for technical formality and there is no error or wrong calculation due to the said debit or credit. The services were not barred nor there is any difference in the service connection provided to the Complainant due to the said debit and credit. But the Complainant is trying to take undue advantage of the said bill without any basis. It is false to state that the matter was before the notice of 5th Opposite Party which is business premises run and controlled by M/s Reliance Web Store Ltd. and they promised to set right the mater before due date.

    The Opposite Parties specifically deny the averments made in para No.4 of the complaint as the same are false and misleading. The legal notice dated 18.3.2008 got issued by the Complainant and he had come up with an allegation that though he had opted for international roaming facility by paying advance deposit of Rs.4,000/- during second week of October 2007 the same was not activated. When he left for New Delhi via Goa on 15.11.2007, on reaching Goa it was noticed that the network was still not functioning. When the Opposite Parties have duly replied to the said notice with documentary proof to show that the international roaming was active with call details, now the Complainant is cleverly changing his case.

    It is further submitted by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant had on 14.11.2007 requested for deactivation of the roaming facility. Hence the said facility was deactivated. If as alleged the Complainant went to Goa he should have requested for activation of national roaming facility again. But contrary to his averments in legal notice, now he says that he observed in Goa that the national roaming facility which he was enjoying was disabled. Whereas, in the legal notice he avers that it was noticed in Goa that the network was still not working. The Opposite Parties deny that the customer care informed the Complainant that due to payment of dues service are disconnected. There was no wrong bill nor any problem with service connection provided to the Complainant due to the debit or deposit amount. The Complainant is trying to fabricate a false case against the Opposite Party on the basis of false averments. As referred by the Complainant himself the due date for payment for the questioned bill was 22.11.2007 and since the customer had a good credit limit there was no question of deactivation for arrears of payment. The billing system of the 2nd Opposite Party is fully computerized and customer will get the status of their bill online.

    The Opposite Parties further submit that there was no excess billing by them nor there was any disconnection of services by the second Opposite Party, if at all the Complainant has undergone any hardship or agony it is only due to his own act of not availing for National Roaming Facility. The Complainant has approached the reliance outlet on 17.11.2007 complaining that his mobile was not working. Immediately a complaint was lodged and upon observing that roaming was cancelled they had immediately created a case to activate the national roaming and accordingly the roaming services were activated on 18.11.2007. Further it is false to state that complaining later approached 5th Opposite Party seeking call details made from 2nd week of October 2007. But his request was avoided on one pretext or the other. The Complainant has never requested for call details. Further the issue of the complainant was that international roaming was not active during the said period. The call details for the said period are given in the statement of service charges dated 1.11.2007 received by the Complainant

    There is no deficiency caused due to the debit or credit of the deposit paid by the Complainant and no amount was forcibly received from the Complainant. The Complainant with is own consciousness has paid the amount as he was not able to make outgoing calls he presumed that there was high usage and hence made the interim payment but these Opposite Parties have never requested nor asked him to make any payment as alleged. AS the Complainant has made interim payment the same was credited to his account and was duly adjusted in his future bills. That being the factual situation there is no need to refund or pay interest on the said amount.

    It is true that the Complainant got issued a legal notice dated 18.3.2008 calling upon the Opposite Party to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- without any basis. The same was duly replied by the Opposite Parties through their counsel with relevant documents. Inspite of the clarification the Complainant has come up with the improved/altered allegations to build up a false case.

    It is further submitted that the releifs claimed by the Complainant are without any basis. The Complainant is enjoying the services provided by the 2nd Opposite Party till date without a single whisper about the services. If at all any mental agony undergone by the Complainant it was only due to his own commission and omission and these Opposite Parties cannot be held liable for the same., Hence, the Opposite Parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost directing the Complainant to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- as contemplated under section 26 of C.P. Act.
    Complainant filed 8 documents which are marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8. Opposite Parties have filed 2 documents which are marked as Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2. Parties have filed affidavits, interrogatories and reply affidavits. Opposite Parties have filed written arguments. We heard the parties.

    Now the points that arise for our consideration are as follows:
    1) Whether the Opposite Parties have indulged in Unfair Trade Practice and which in turn amounts to deficiency in service?
    2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
    3) What Order?

    Point No.1.
    It is an admitted fact that the Complainant had availed the mobile service of the Opposite Party network since past few years and the mobile number of the Complainant is 9342789392. According to the Complainant, he had national roaming facility by which he was able to receive and make calls whenever traveling outside Karnataka State (Home Location) also. He made advance deposit of Rs.4,000/- on 12.10.2007 against receipt No.S078101563 for availing international roaming facility also.

    The case of the Complainant is that he received a bill bearing No.291909012542 dated 01.11.2007 from the Opposite Party for the month of October 2007. There was a complete wrong calculation in that bill which claimed a sum of Rs.7,818.43 instead of actual payable amount of Rs.3,818.43, this was due to wrong debit of Rs.4,000/- instead of credit (for cash receipt of Rs.4,000) in the Complainant’s account. The matter was immediately brought to the 5th Opposite Party who is the local representative of mobile network. They promised to set right the matter before the due date of payment of the bill i.e. on 22.11.2007. Later the Complainant received a bill No.291965279968 dated 1.l2.2007 for the month of November 2007 in which the Opposite Parties have shown Rs.4,000/- as adjusted. According to the Complainant this bill shows the cash payment of Rs.4,818/- by the Complainant during this period and bill finally shows an excess payment collected from the Complainant to the tune of Rs.4,031/- and according to him this excess payment forcibly received from the Complainant by the Opposite Parties was neither refunded nor any interest was paid.

    The Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant trying to take undue advantage of debit of deposit paid by him in the statement of service charges. Since the amount of Rs.4,000/- was paid as deposit same was debited to his account and credited subsequently and the amount was adjusted towards the bill outstanding, the said debit and credit were technical formality there was no error or wrong calculation due to the said debit or credit. During the said process a bill has been generated and hence the said amount was shown as due even if it is believed the said contention, it is evident to note that due date for payment of the bill of 1.11.2007 was 22.11.2007 and the Complainant had the credit limit of Rs.14,900/- that being the case there is no question of any disconnection due to the alleged debit of Rs.4,000/-.

    The Complainant has produced 8 documents out of which Ex.C-1 is the receipt No.S078101563 dated 12.10.2007 , Ex.C-2 is the bill No.291679898849 dated 1.7.2007, Ex.C-3 is the Bill No.291909012542 dated 1.11.2007, Ex.C-4 is the Reeipt No.S081618159 dated 19.11.2007 and Ex.C-5 is the Bill No.291965279968 dated 1.12.2007, Ex.C-6 is the copy of lawyer’s regd. notice dated 18.3.2008 sent on behalf of the Complainant, Ex.C-7 is the lawyer’s reply notice dated 15.4.2008 sent on behalf of the Opposite Party and Ex.C-8 is the calls details of Ex.C-3.

    Opposite Parties have produced two documents. Ex.R-1 is the call details of same call details of Ex.C-8. Ex.R-2 is the calls details bill No.291965279968 dated 01.12.2007 for the month of November 2007(1.11.2007 to 30.11.2007).

    The other allegation of the Complainant is that he observed in Goa that the national roaming facility which he was enjoying was disabled on 15.11.2007. Immediately he lodged a complaint with the customer care (*333). During which also it was informed to the Complainant that the payment was due and hence service is disconnected. When he left for New Delhi via Goa on 15.11.2007 the phone was not functioning due to deactivation of national roaming facility by the Opposite Party No.1 without any justification. Again on 16.11.2007 the friends at Udupi and his wife Asha Shenoy kept perusing the Opposite Party No.5 at Udupi for immediate restoration of connectivity by rectifying the mistake of the Opposite Party. But the connection was not activated. He submitted that he approached Opposite Party service centre at New Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi on 17.11.2007 with the complaint, but they refused to do justice, inspite of knowing the wrong debit made in the Complainant’s account. As the service center New Delhi assured the Complainant of reconnection if cash payment is made to bring down the claimed amount by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant made further payment of Rs.1,000/- under protest as to had to be in touch with his family and friends. Inspite of it the connection of the Complainant was not restored.

    The Complainant is concealing the fact that the service connection was not barred. The Opposite Parties submit that the Complainant only allegation is that he was not able to use national roaming facility when he was in Goa on 15.11.2007. Even the statement of service charges dated 1.12.2007 produced by the Opposite Party shows that till 14.11.2007 he was using roaming facility. The Complainant had opted for roaming facility only till 14.11.2007, thereafter on 19.11.2007 also he had used this roaming facility, in between the said period to show that he used this phone, he has not produced any evidence. But contrary to his averments in legal notice now he says that he observed in Goa that national roaming facility which he was enjoying was disabled, whereas in the legal notice he avers that it was noticed in Goa that network was not still working




    In Ex.R-2 the International Roaming CDMA Charges – IR D4000 M150 01.11.2007 to 14.11.2007 and STD99 Mobile Pack – 01.11.2007 to 15.11.2007

  4. #4
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default Reliance Communications

    P.Kathiravan,
    B+90, Phase I, Parsan Palm Legend,
    Coimbatore – 16. Complainant

    Vs.

    1. Pragma Solutions,
    Reliance Communication Ltd.,
    7, Kamarajar Road, Singanallur
    Coimbatore – 15.

    2. Nodal Officer, Bank of Baroda,
    Reliance Communication Ltd.,
    6, Haddows Road, Nungampakkam,
    Chennai 600 006.

    3. Service Assurance Cell,
    A Block 2nd floor, Reliance Communication Ltd.,
    DAKC, Thane Belapur Road,
    Koparkhairme, Navi Mumbai 400 710. Opposite parties

    ---
    This case coming on for final hearing before us o 20.4.09 in the presence of M/s.V.Mahendran & Associates, Advocates for the complainant and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, the Forum passed the following.

    ORDER

    Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and to pay Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay the cost of the complaint.

    The Averments in the Complaint are as follows:

    1. The complainant is using the Reliance Mobile in the number 9363050442 as a postpaid connection. As he is not comfortable with the post paid he has decided to change the scheme to prepaid scheme. To that he has complied necessary formalities. At that time the bill due was only Rs.370 in total. But it was calculated by the people in the web world and asked to pay Rs.802 and paid Rs.802 on 27.9.08. The unbilled amount date as on that date was only Rs.370 but they have collected an excess amount of Rs.432 which should not have been done. The itemized bill itself is evidencing that.

    2. The opposite party issued the customer voice form and the receipt of the payment received acknowledging the customers request. Thereby it was assured by the 1st opposite party to change the scheme within 3 days. But now even after 3 months from that date, his mobile scheme was not changed. The complainant has contacted the 1st opposite party so many times but those were ended in vain. All the more, the outgoing and incoming were barred now. This causes much mental agony and shock to the complainant and stating all facts the legal notice were sent to opposite party on 22.10.08, which were left as unreplied.

    3. Due to the non-migration of the scheme the bill is sent along with monthly rent, to which the complainant is not liable to pay as he had already paid the necessary charges and the payments to convert the mobile into prepaid scheme, which has no monthly rent. Thereby they have not only committed the deficiency in service and caused much mental agony. Hence this complaint.

    4. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A7 was marked and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte.

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


    ISSUE NO.1:
    5. The case of the complainant is that he was using the Reliance Mobile Phone No.93630 50442 as a postpaid connection, as he is not comfortable with the post paid he has decided to change scheme to prepaid scheme, even after complying all formalities, still his mobile scheme was not changed. Hence this complaint.

    6. Ex.A1 is the itemized bill and Ex.A2 is the customer voice form. As per this document, the customer has requested for post to pre migration. The Extract of relevant portion is marked herewith.

    Exact voice of the customer:

    ………
    “Customer request for post to pre migration
    due to personal convenience”.
    …..

    Ex.A4 is the mail given by the complainant and Ex.A5 is the legal notice dated 22.10.08. Even after receiving e-mail and letter the opposite party has not changed the mobile scheme. Hence we are of the view that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief.


    7. In the result we direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay the cost of Rs.1,000/- 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.

  5. #5
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default Reliance India Mobile

    Shri Francis D’Souza,
    r/o Saligao, Bardez, Goa. ..……………….Complainant


    V

    Reliance IndiaMobile
    Maker Chambers IV,
    222, Nariman Point,
    Mumbai 400 021. .………...…..Opposite Party -1



    Date: - 16 /04/2009


    O R D E R


    (Per Smt. Shanti Maria Fonseca, Sr. Member)


    Brief facts of the Case:-

    1.The Complainant who is a senior citizen had purchased a cellular phone connection from the Opposite Parties on or about 31.03.03 after making a payment of Rs.21,000 (Rupees twenty one thousand only) to the Opposite Party. It is also his case that he thereafter made an additional payment of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the Opposite Parties for availing facilities of making overseas calls. According to the Complainant the cellular phone gave no trouble till May 2004. It is his case that somewhere around June 2004 the said cellular phone started giving trouble and the Complainant was not able to make calls or receive calls clearly. It is also his case that the buttons of the phone were not functioning properly and therefore could not be dialed.





    2.According to the Complainant the services offered by the Opposite Parties thereafter was poor and contrary to the heavy promisesmade at the time of providing service. It is his case that without prior intimation the services to the Complainant were disconnected. It is his case however that despite the disconnection he was receiving inflated bills. In these circumstances the Complainant has submitted before us that he was forced to return the said goods to the Opposite Party -2 in the presence of the Police Inspector in their office. The Complainant has therefore come before us alleging that he has been cheated by the Opposite Parties who have committed unfair trade practice against him by not even providing him with warranty/ guarantee card and catalogue at the time of purchase of the product.

    3.The Opposite Parties in their Affidavit in evidence before us have denied that there has been any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. It is their case that the Complainant could have always complained if the handset was not functioning properly and that the same would have been resolved. It is their case that the present complaint has been filed before this Forum only to harass and to exhort money from them. It is their case that the Complainant deposited the handset in the office of the Opposite Party -2 without paying arrears due to the Opposite Party for services that were rendered to him.


    OBSERVATIONS

    1.The Opposite Party has admitted that the handset is in their possession since December 2004 i.e. within 6 months of the Complainant having booked the same. There is no dispute that an initial amount of Rs.23,000/- (twenty three thousand only) has also been received by them.

    2.The Opposite Parties in their written version and affidavit have stated that they were unable to refund the money of the Complainant as he did not co-operate in filling the necessary forms.

    3.No proper verification has been done by the Opposite Party in their written version dated 23.09.05

    4.Going through all documents and evidence that has been placed before us we are of the considered opinion that there has been a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party who could have been more accommodative considering that the complainant was a senior citizen.

    Hence we pass the following:

    ORDER


    1.Opposite Party -2 to refund Rs.23,000 (twenty three thousand only) to the Complainant.

    2.Cost of Rs.5,000/- granted towards the cost of legal fees, mental torture and harassment.

    3.Order to be complied within 30 days of receipt.

  6. #6
    Sidhant's Avatar
    Sidhant is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,742

    Default Reliance Infocom

    1. Uma Kant son of Shri Shiva Nand

    Resident of Shiv Niwas, Annadale

    Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P.



    2. Shakintla W/O of Uma Kant

    Resident of Shiv Niwas, Annadale

    Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P.



    … Complainants

    Versus







    1. Kapoor Enterprises

    Reliance Wed World Express,

    The Mall Shimla-1, through its Proprietor.



    2. Reliance Infocom Regd. Office

    EO 1 Reliance Greens, Village Motikhavdi,

    P.O. Digvijay Greens, Village Motikhavdi,

    PO Digvijay Gram Distt. Jamnagar-361140

    Gujarat through its General Manager/Manager.





    …Opposite Parties


    O R D E R:


    Pritam Singh (District Judge) President:- This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts in brief as set out in the complaint are that complainants wanted to get their computer connected with internet and other required facilities as per the scheme provided by the OPs in the advertisement and they contacted the OP No.1 in this behalf. That they paid a sum of Rs.2300/- out of which security amount of Rs.2,000/- was refundable and Rs.300/- were charged by the OP No.1 in advance as rent for the month of March, 2005. On 24.02.2005, they were provided with phone set by OP No.1 who also assured that phone set will be activated within a day or two. But, the OPs connected their computer with internet on 02.03.2005, but they failed to provide signal in side the house of complainants and as such they were not in a position to avail internet facility in their phone set. As such, they requested OPs to disconnect the phone and to refund the security amount. But, despite repeated requests, they did not refund the security amount to them. Hence, feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the OPs, the complainant perforce filed this complaint against the OPs.


    2. The complaint is resisted by OPs who took various preliminary objections regarding maintainability of complaint, jurisdiction of the Forum to try complaint and status of the complainants as consumer etc. On merits, they alleged that the amount of Rs.2,000/- charged from the complainants was not refundable as Rs.800/- were charged from himas installation charges and Rs.1200/- were charged as non-refundable security. That there being no deficiency in service, the complaint is sought to be dismissed. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their claim/counter claim.

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


    4. It may be stated that undisputedly the complainants wanted to get their computer connected with internet and other required facility who read the scheme provided by the OPs in the advertisement and contacted the OPs No.1 to get their computer connected with the aforesaid internet facility and paid Rs.2300/- including security amount of Rs.2,000/- to OPs which was refundable. That they were provided with phone set on 24.02.2005 by the OP No.1 who also assured them that the same will be activated within a day or two with the internet facility, but the OPs did not connect their computer with internet facility despite aforesaid assurances till 2nd March, 2005 and thereafter they also failed to provide signal inside the house of the complainant. Hence, they were not in a position to avail internet facility on phone set provided to them by the OPs. Therefore, they asked the OPs to refund the aforesaid security amount of Rs.2,000/-, but the OPs declined to refund the amount of security aforesaid to complainants.


    5. The OPs in reply, however, alleged that this amount of Rs.2,000/- charged from the complainants was not refundable as Rs.800/- were charged from them as installation charges and Rs.1200/- were charged as non-refundable.


    6. The complainants in support of their case have placed on record the bill Annexure C-1. As per the contents of this bill total sum of Rs.2,102.72 was charged from the complainants for the period 24.02.2005 to 04.03.2005 including security amount of Rs.2,000/- which is shown as ‘refundable’. This document which is issued by the OPs goes to prove that the amount of Rs.2,000/- charged from the complainants was refundable and it not ‘non-refundable’ as alleged by the OPs. As the complainants were not provided with internet facility on phone set despite repeated request, therefore they made request to OPs to disconnect the phone set and refund their security amount, but the OPs did not refund the refundable security amount of Rs.2,000/- to the complainants. The complainants had also issued letter to the OPs calling upon them to refund the security amount as is evident from copy of letter Annexure C-3, but the OPs neither sent the reply of this letter to complainants nor refunded the aforesaid security amount of Rs.2,000/- to the. As such this act on the part of the OPs would certainly amount to deficiency in service on their part.


    7. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the complaint is genuine. It is as such allowed. Resultantly, we direct the OPs jointly and severally to refund the security amount of Rs.2,000/- to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 03.05.2005 till making full payment of the aforesaid amount. The OPs are also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainants. This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order.

  7. #7
    Sidhant's Avatar
    Sidhant is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,742

    Default Reliance Infocom

    The complaint is filed to restore the outgoing facility in mobile phone, which is cut off by the respondents. The case is as follows. The complainant is a consumer of the respondent mobile company having No.9388558887. On 21.4.06 the outgoing facility of the mobile phone was cut off by the respondents without any notice. This resulted in a huge financial loss and mental agony. Hence the complaint.

    2. The counter is as follows: The complainant’s brother R.V. Hamsa obtained a connection from the respondents and he kept dues of Rs.4375/-. Even after giving notice he has not remitted the bill amount. Hence the connection was disconnected. Subsequently the complainant obtained the phone connection in the same address. Before barring the outgoing calls in 9388558887 informed the customer to pay the dues pending in his brother’s phone. The disconnection is legal and there is no deficiency in service from the part of the respondents. Hence dismiss the complaint.

    3. The points for consideration are:

    (1) Is there any deficiency in service?
    (2) If so, reliefs and costs.

    4. No evidence adduced by both.

    5. Points-1 & 2: The complainant’s case is that he is a subscriber of the respondent Mobile Company and he had a mobile phone No.9388558887. But the respondents cut off the outgoing facility without any prior notice. Hence requested to restore the out going facility and also for compensation for the loss sustained to him. The respondents’ contention is that there was another phone availed by the complainant’s brother in the same address. The brother kept dues and did not remit the dues even after giving notices. Hence the phone was disconnected and also informed the complainant to clear the dues before barring the outgoing facility. No evidence adduced by both.

    6. The question to be decided is whether the respondents can disconnect the outgoing facility for the arrears of another person. In the present case the facility was cut due to the dues of brother of complainant. Both are in same address and are residing in the same house. According to the respondents, the connection to complainant was taken only to overcome the payment dues kept in the earlier connection. They have no case that the complainant has outstanding dues. The facility enjoyed by complainant was cut not because of the fault of him. So there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents in cutting the facility enjoyed by the complainant for the fault of another.

    6. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to restore the outgoing facility of the mobile connection of complainant within two weeks. The respondents are further directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as compensation within two weeks and no order as to costs.

  8. #8
    Unregistered Guest

    Default wrong billing

    My self ‘Ranjan kumar pandey’ is a consumer of Reliance communications. My mobile number is 9334391325 and my consumer Relation no. is 2303686473. I have been charged for free reliance number in the all month of august, september There has been no charge taken on all realince number for the calls made till 13th Aug 09. From 19th onwards every call on this number is charged with the rate of Local call charge per min.
    I came to know when the bill increased the credit limit and my outgoing were stopped. I requested for bill and after checking the details I came to know that calls are been charged for free reliance number. When spoken to customer care executives they said that it was informed to customer via sms that free service has been stopped to smart phone of MP and Bihar. But I haven’t received any sms till date. I have spoken to supervisor also regarding the same and logged a complain (complain number: - 108425111) on date check the details and waive the amount charged on the free reliance number as there was no prior information provided to me by any means. After continuous follow up with the customer care executives and supervisor I dint got any kind of satisfactory reply. I dint got any call from the concerned dept to which the complain was forwarded. After speaking again and again with supervisor they No provided me their senior numbers,
    I have received no call from customer care for the above complain made.
    My outgoing call is stop by customer care.aginst my bill.

    What I do ?

  9. #9
    mananchopra is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1

    Exclamation Charging Fraudulently

    Dear Sir,

    I have a Reliance Mobile CDMA connection since many years.
    Now recently while checking the bill, I have noticed some charges in my bill for some Value added services which i never asked for. And as a matter of fact and to my astonishment, I'm paying these charges since quote a few months or might be more than a year.

    While talking to there customer executives, they agreed that this got automatically activated and they can deactivate if I want. That is Ok. But what about all that money which I'm paying since quite a few months? They are not ready to give the reversal for the same. If they would have given it to me, I would not be putting any claims. But since they are not ready to pay anything back, I want to put a case of 420 on them as they charged me with something which i never asked for and that too without my knowledge.

    Please guide me as to how I go about it. I have the complaint number with me.

    Mobile No: 9312934695

  10. #10
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default Reliance Communications

    Ajith A
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    M/s Reliance Communications Ltd
    ...........Respondent(s)





    ORDER


    Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant has availed of a Reliance Hello (Reliance Fixed Wireless Phone) vide No. 0471 3253368 with effect from 09.03.2005 after paying the required deposit of Rs. 1,000/-. Consequent on the higher monthly rental charge and call charges, he requested for the termination of the same through the Reliance Customer Care on 24.03.2008 vide request No. 65859842. The telephone instrument was returned on 27.03.2008 at Reliance Communications outlet, Akshaya Complex, Neyyattinkara.


    The refund of security deposit consequent on the termination of the connection was not settled within the stipulated time of 60 days as per the terms and conditions of the opposite party. Even after the written complaint made on 13.09.2008 no reply has been sent till this date. Moreover the opposite party has not issued the invoice for the period from 18.03.2008 to 27.03.2008 though the payment was cleared. Hence the complainant approached before this Forum for the refund of the deposit amount with interest, compensation and costs.




    The opposite party M/s Reliance Communications Ltd. accepted notice from this Forum, but they never turned up to contest the case. Hence the opposite party remains exparte.




    Points that would arise for consideration are:-

    1. Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?

    2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?



    In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced 7 documents to prove his claim. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P7. Ext. P1 is the copy of invoice for the security deposit details. From this document we can see that an amount of Rs. 1,000/- is adjusted towards deposit from the total payment of Rs. 3,350/-. Ext. P2 is the copy of bill dated 21.03.2005. Ext. P3 is the copy of receipt of service termination request dated 27.03.2008. Ext. P4 is the copy of cash receipt clearing all dues upto and including the date of termination of phone connection for an amount of Rs. 280/- dated 27.03.2008. Ext. P5 is the copy of invoice for the period from 18.02.2008 to 17.03.2008. Ext. P5 is the evidence that the complainant is entitled to get the security deposit amount.


    Accordingly on customer request termination will be made within 60 days of closure of telephone connection beyond which customer will be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 10% per annum. This condition is clearly stated in Ext. P5 document. Ext. P6 is the copy of bill dated 18.03.2008 for the payment of Rs. 176/-. Ext. P7 is the copy of letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party demanding refund of the security deposit.




    From the documents and evidences adduced by the complainant, the complainant has established his case successfully. From these documents we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get the deposit amount of Rs. 1,000/- with 10% annual interest from the opposite party from the date of deposit. As per Ext. P5 the opposite party is liable to refund the security deposit amount on request for termination since it will be made within sixty days of closure of telephone connection beyond which customer will be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 10% per annum. In this case the opposite party itself violated the terms and conditions.


    The complainant made termination request on 27.03.2008, but the opposite party till this date not turned up to refund the security deposit amount. Complainant sent notice to the opposite party to refund the amount on 13.09.2008. But the opposite party did not refund the amount. The opposite party accepted notice from this Forum, but even then not turned up to settle the matter. This act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Hence this complaint is allowed.




    In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- with 10% annual interest from 27.03.2008. The opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order and thereafter 12% annual interest shall be paid to the above said amounts till the date of realisation.

  11. #11
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default Reliance Communications

    Shri Umesh P. Singh … Complainant.



    Versus



    Reliance Communications & another



    … Opposite Parties


    O R D E R:

    Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) (Oral) President:- This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that he was subscriber of telephone hand set bearing No.3299110 of which bill Annexure C-2A appended to the complaint amounting to Rs.915/-, is, excessive as well as inflated, as, he had not used the said facility to such an extent. The learned counsel for the OPs has seriously refuted the contention, as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

    2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OP, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bill, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered calls of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such calls shall render, its, finding. It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OP proceeds to conduct an inquiry, it shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry.


    The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record. In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OP, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh. With this, the complaint is finally disposed of. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

  12. #12
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default Reliance Communications

    L.Velmurugan,S/o.Loganathan,

    247, @@@@hipuram 1st street,

    @@@@hipuram, Coimbatore-12. --- Complainant

    Vs.

    1. The Authorised person incharge,

    Reliance Communications Ltd. No.551,

    D.B.Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-2.

    2. The Authorised Person incharge,

    Reliance Communications Ltd.

    No.6,Haddows Road,

    Nungambakkam, Chennai – 6. --- Opposite Parties




    ORDER

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

    The averments in the complaint are as follows:

    1. The case of the complainant is that the 1st opposite party’s representative had met the complainant in the 3rd week of September 2008 and had requested him to avail the broadband service of the Reliance Communications and gave an assurance to the complainant that within 48 hours connections will be given.

    2. On the assurance of the opposite party’s representative the complainant paid Rs.500 on 25.9.08 by way of cheque drawn on Vijaya Bank, Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore and the same was received by the 1st opposite party’s Sales Executive Mr.Robin Antony. But as promised by the opposite parties broadband connection was not given. The 1st opposite party never cared to fulfill his promise because of this complainant availed the broadband service of the BSNL and he was continued to his work. Due to the inordinate delay of the opposite parties the complainant had already suffered huge monetary loss and also he had lost many valuable customers. Complainant received a courier during 3rd week of February 2009 in which he found a letter dt.9.2.09 with a cheque dt.30.1.09 for Rs.500 regretting for not giving broadband connection to the complainant. The act of the opposite parties is purely deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.









    3. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A3 was marked and the opposite parties are remained absent and set exparte.

    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

    4. The complainant has proved his case by way of Proof Affidavit and documents viz. Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the receipt issued by the 1st opposite party dt.25.9.08 and A2 is the cheque dt.30.1.09 issued by the HDFC bank to the complainant and Ex.A3 is the regret letter from the opposite party. Though the payment was received on 25.9.08 and the opposite parties failed to give broadband connection to the complainant as assured. The act of the opposite parties is purely a deficiency of service. The complainant also suffered at the hands of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief.

    5. In the result, we direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 as compensation towards mental agony and sufferings to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1000 towards cost within two months 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.

  13. #13
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default Reliance Telecommunication

    1) ISKCON,

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

    ---Verses---

    1) Reliance Telecommunication Ltd.,

    Reliance House, 34, Chowringee Road,

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





    Order No. 11 Dated 1 4 / 0 9 / 2 0 0 9 .



    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.

  14. #14
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default Reliance Communication

    Shri Vimal Kumar modgil son of Shri Hari Chnad, resident of 3/2/5 Mohalla Amarpur, Nahan, Distt Sirmaur, H.P.





    … Complainant.

    Versus



    1. M/s Jagat Agency through its Prop. Shri Sandeep Singh Franchise, Reliance Infocomm, Ltd, Shop No. 3 Gurdawara Market, Near Delhigate Nahan.



    2. The Reliance Infrastructure Communication

    Through its Manager C/O Top Floor Salig Ram Bhawan,

    opposite Shimla Public School, Shimla, H.P.





    …Opposite Parties.







    O R D E R:



    This instant complaint, has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant alleged that on, 27.06.2006, he purchased a mobile phone along with connection, from the OPs, on 27.07.2006 for a sum of Rs.2430/-, and a sum of Rs.330/- was charged as activation fee. The complainant further proceeded to assert that the OPs did not activate the mobile phone, whereas, several requests were made to them to do the needful, but to no avail. He further alleges that when the OPs did not accede to his request, he was left with no other option but to return the mobile phone to the OPs. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, and, accordingly, the relief to the extent, as detailed in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

    2. The OP No.1, in its written version, to the complaint, admitted that the complainant did purchase mobile phone and connection of Reliance Infocamp Ltd., but it is denied that it was to provide local as well, as, STD service to the subscriber. The OP No.1, further contend that since the connection was to be activated by Reliance Infocamp Ltd., hence, it cannot be blamed for non-activation of the connection. The OP No.2, in its separate written version to the complaint, raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, suppression of material facts and jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is contended by OP No.2, that the connection was activated on 27.07.2006, hence the complainant used the connection and bills dated 22.08.2006, 22.09.2006, 22.10.2006 and 22.11.2006 were generated in favour of the complainant. It is denied that the complainant returned the hand set to the OP No.1. Since, service was provided to the complainant, and connection was activated well within the scheduled time, hence it is denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part.

    3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in the shape of affidavits/documents, in support of their respective rival contentions.

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

    5. The complainant ventilates two grievances before us; (a) non-activation of the mobile connection, as purchased by the him from the OP No.1; (b) the complainant, hence, having returned the mobile phone to the OP No.1, the OP No.1, be directed to refund to him the price of the mobile phone as purchased by him from it.

    6. The OP No.1, is, admittedly, a franchise of OP No.2. It is not disputed that OP No.2 was obliged to activate the mobile phone as purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1. In its reply, the OP No.2 has relied upon Annexures R-2 & R-3, in, canvassing before this Forum, that, with the aforesaid annexures revealing the fact of the user of the mobile phone by the complainant, the plea, of, the complainant that the OP No.2 had not activated the mobile phone, is, falsified. On a perusal of the aforesaid annexures revealing that, the mobile phone had been used by the complainant, hence, especially, when the complainant has not repulsed the contents of Annexures R-2 & R-3, the contention as raised by the OP No.2 deserves, to be, countenanced.

    7. Since, it is revealed by Annexure R-2, the OP No.2 had sent SMS to the complainant, to pay the outstanding bills, hence, when, as concluded above with the contents of Annexure R-2 having remained un-repulsed and also when the complainant having not adduced evidence that he did pay the outstanding calls charges to the OP No.2, therefore, it is to be concluded, that, the mobile phone had been deactivated by the OP No.2 only for non-payment of the outstanding call charges by the complainant.

    8. The complainant has in support of the contention that he had returned the mobile phone as purchased by him from the OP No.1, has, depended upon Annexure –IV. The OP No.1 has attempted, to, wriggle out of the contents of Annexure OP-IV on the strength of its signatory Mohd Ashwatib, not, being its employee at the time of issuance of Annexure-IV. However, the said contention is not proved by the OP No.1 by adduction of best evidence by them, comprised in the register of employees, maintained by it.


    The withholding of the said best evidence by the OP, persuades us to draw an inference, that, Mohd Ashwatib at the time of preparation of Annexure-IV was an employee of OP No.1, as such, the recitals in the aforesaid Annexure-IV having been made by its employee are binding upon it lending proof qua the return of the mobile phone. As a sequitor, with proof of the complainant having returned the mobile phone as purchased by him from the OP No.1, the OP No.1, is, hence obliged to refund to him the amount thereof. Since, no, proof has been adduced on behalf of the complainant so as to persuade us to award special damages, hence, the complainant is not entitled for grant of special damages, except, for, refund of the amount of mobile phone, i.e. Rs.2430/-.

    9. Accordingly, we allow this complaint and direct the OP No.1 to refund Rs.2430/- to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 07.09.2006, till making full payment of the aforesaid amount to the complainant. The OP No.1, is, also burdened with litigation cost, quantified at Rs.1,000/- payable by the OP No.1, to the complainant. This order shall be complied with, by the OP No.1, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the complainant has undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, whereas the certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OP by the office through UPC. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

  15. #15
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default Reliance Communications

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

    (Complainant)



    Vs.



    1. Reliance Communications Ltd. SCO, Feroze @@@@hi 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.

    11. Allowing the complaint we direct opposite parties to refund Rs.8600/- to the complainant with 9% interest per annum from 1.4.2008 till payment. For causing harassment and mental torture to the complainant by not refunding above amount of Rs.8600/- by a big company of the opposite parties and forcing complainant to issue repeatedly registered letters as well as e-mails, opposite parties ordered to pay compensation for causing harassment amounting to Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousands only) and litigation cost assessed at Rs.3000/-(Rs.Three Thousands only) to the complainant. Order be complied within 45 days of the receipt of copy of same, which be made available to the parties free of costs.

+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. fraud by reliance communications
    By sunil from surat in forum Mobile Services
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-09-2014, 01:47 AM
  2. complain against Reliance communications
    By mahokejriwal in forum Mobile Services
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-06-2013, 03:48 AM
  3. Balance deduction by Reliance Communications
    By cool_life_guy in forum Mobile Services
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-23-2012, 10:12 AM
  4. Reliance communications
    By abhijitmaitra in forum Broadband
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-05-2009, 09:01 PM
  5. Complaint against Reliance communications Ltd.
    By Ramesh Khatod. in forum Land Line Phone
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-15-2009, 09:08 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •