Kerala

Trissur

CC/2006/915

Arun - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Mobile Communication Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B.Sajith

31 Aug 2010

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMAyyanthole , Thrissur
Complaint Case No. CC/2006/915
1. ArunThachamkulam House Elavally Palakkad ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. Idea Mobile Communication LtdRep.By Manager Ravipuram Cochin ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE Rajani P.S. ,MemberHONORABLE Sasidharan M.S ,Member
PRESENT :B.Sajith, Advocate for Complainant
Madhu .N. Namboothiripad, Advocate for Opp.Party

Dated : 31 Aug 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 
By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
         
          The complainant’s case is as follows. The complainant is a subscriber of the respondents vide mobile No.9874800255 and it is a post paid connection at the rate of Rs.99/- as monthly rent. On 22.9.06 the complainant has called the respondents to get the song of “ente khalbile…..” in the cinema ‘classmates’ as his dialer tone. But he did not get the requested song. The complainant again dialled to get the song on 23.9.06. But he got the song of “Karale…….” in the cinema ‘Udayananu Tharam’ instead of the song desired by him.   The complainant complained about it to the customer care centre and the respondents changed the dialer tone and gave the desired one. The respondents advertised that they charged Rs.6.99 for calling dialer tone. But the respondents charged Rs.167.36 for down loading one dialer tone. This is quite illegal and the respondents are thus cheating the consumers by this kind of misleading advertisement. So they are committing unfair trade practice. The complainant has again complained about it. But there was no remedy. When the complainant received bill for the month of October it was seen charged with Rs.371.41. Hence the complaint is filed praying to set aside the impugned bill and also for compensation and costs.
 
          2. The respondent is called absent and set exparte.
 
          3. The complainant has filed affidavit and produced the impugned bill and it is marked as Ext. P1. 
 
          4. The complainant’s case is that as advertised by the respondents he called them to get his favourite song as his dialer tone and he did not get the song in the first time. When he dialed for the song in the second time he got a song which was not desired by him. On complaining about it in their customer care centre the complainant got the song he desired. More over as advertised by the respondents Rs.6.99 will be charged for receiving dialer tone they charged Rs.167.36 for one dialer tone. This is quite contrary to the advertisements and it amounts to unfair trade practice. So the complainant states that he is not liable to pay Ext. P1 bill and it is liable to set aside. There is no evidence to the contrary.
 
          5. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the impugned Ext. P1 bill is set aside. 
 
         
 
 
          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31st day of August 2010.

[HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member