+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 160

Thread: Tata Indicom

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,988

    Default Tata Indicom

    ORDER

    BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
    VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
    PRESENT
    SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
    SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
    SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
    C.C. No. 146/2008 Filed on 03.07.2008
    Dated : 30.03.2009
    Complainant:
    Valsalakumari. L, Kunnumpurathu Veedu, Near Chamundi Devi Temple, Peroorkada P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
    (By adv. J. Mohanan Nair)
    Opposite parties:

        1. The Managing Director/Manager, Tata Telecom Service Ltd., Regional Office, 10th Floor, Tower-I, Jeevan Bharathi 124, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi-1.
        2. The Manager, Customer Care Service, Tata Tele Service, SL Plaza, Cochin-23.
        3. The Customer Care Manager, Tata Tele Service Ltd., Razaji Plaza, Sreekariyam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

    (By adv. T.L. Sreeram)

        1. Manager, Tata True Value, Kairali Complex, Thakaraparambu Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

    This O.P having been heard on 18.02.2009, the Forum on 30.03.2009 delivered the following:
    ORDER

    SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER




    Facts of the case are as follows: The complainant in this case is a real estate agent. For her business purpose, she had taken a mobile connection with mobile No. 9249418780 from the opposite parties, the Tata Telecom Services Ltd. The complainant has paid Rs. 5,200/- for the handset alone which can be used only with the Tata Indicom connection. The complainant had been running her real estate business which is the only source of her income, using the said mobile phone number. On 06.03.2008 the complainant had remitted Rs. 900/- towards phone bill at the 1st opposite party's outlet of 4th opposite party at Kairali Complex vide receipt No. 3001. On 16.03.2008, the 1st opposite party has disconnected the service to the complainant's phone though there was no dues towards the bills. The complainant contacted all the customer care service centre of the 1st opposite party about the reason for the disconnection. All the opposite parties informed the complainant that the phone service was disconnected due to non-payment of pending bills. The complainant had to run from one outlet to another of the 1st opposite party with all the records and receipts of the up-to-date payment of the phone bill and also begged to reconnect the service. The mobile phone was the only one media of communication and contact to hundreds of the customers of the complainant. Instead of looking into the complaint and redress the grievance of the complainant, the opposite parties humiliated and harassed the complainant. Due to the irresponsible service of the opposite parties the complainant has lost the contact with so many customers and she has lost two business from where the complainant would have earned Rs. 50,000/- as commission. Complainant states that she has to incur and suffer loss, mental pain, suffering, humiliation and insult because of the irresponsibility and dereliction of duties from the side of the opposite parties. The complainant also stated that after 16.03.2008 she has not used the phone, but the opposite parties are sending bills to the complainant. Hence this complaint.


    The opposite parties in this case remained exparte. Complainant has filed proof affidavit and she was examined as PW1. Complainant has produced 7 documents to prove her case. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 toP7.


    Points that would arise for consideration are:-

        1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?
        2. Reliefs and costs.



    Points (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that she has paid the phone bills duly, but the opposite parties disconnected the service for the reason that the complainant has not paid the bills correctly. To prove her allegation against the opposite parties, the complainant has produced 7 documents. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the copy of bill dated 21.03.2008. Ext. P2 is the copy of the receipt No. 3001 dated 06.03.2008 for Rs. 900/-. Ext. P3 is the copy of complaint sent to the opposite parties relating to unauthorized disconnection. Ext. P4 is the copy of postal receipts. Ext. P5 is the copy of lawyer's notice. Ext. P6 is the copy of postal receipt. Ext. P7 is the copy of acknowledgement cards.


    Ext. P2 receipt shows that the complainant had paid the phone bill of Rs. 900/- on 06.03.2008, but the opposite parties disconnected the connection on 16.03.2008 for the reason that the complainant has not paid the bill. This act of the opposite party proves their irresponsibility and negligence. The deficient service of the opposite parties caused huge financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Since the complainant has paid the bills correctly the opposite parties should render their service promptly. The opposite parties' negligent and deficient services caused so many problems in her business. Hence the opposite parties are liable for their deficient service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint is allowed.


    In the result, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation to the complainant. This Forum direct the opposite parties not to collect any amount from the complainant towards any bill subsequent to disconnection. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) as costs. Time for compliance one month and thereafter 12% annual interest shall also be paid to the above said amounts till the date of realization.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,988

    Default

    C.C. NO. 103 OF 2008
    Between :-
    B.Krishnanand, S/o Sathyanarayana aged 47 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o H.No:10-3-436, Shivajinagar, Nizamabad.
    Petitioner/Complainant
    AND


    1.The Manager, TATA Indicom Tele Services, Besides: Vijay Theatre, Nizamabad.

    2.The Manager (Commercial) Tata Tele Services. Ltd., 10th Floor, Tower-I, Jeevan Bharathi, 124 Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110 001.
    Respondents/Opposite Parties

    This Consumer Complaint Case coming on 24 - 03 - 2009 for final

    hearing before us in the presence of Sri B.Krishnanand, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri Rama Goud, Advocate for Opposite Parties 1 and 2 and upon hearing the arguments of both side advocates and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following :


    :: O R D E R ::
    (ORAL ORDER BY Smt.K.VINAYA KUMARI, MEMBER)

    1. THIS IS A COMPLAINT FILED U/SEC.12 OF C.P.ACT, 1986.

    2. The material facts in the complaint are as follows.

    3. The complainant an advocate by profession and a resident of
    Nizamabad subscribed for 7 Connections under group call of Opposite party and submitted application form on 10-04-2008 by paying required fee of Rs.3,500/-. Subsequently due to personal reasons submitted application form within a week days i.e. on 16-04-2008 for cancellation of connections in the office of Opposite party. But the Opposite Party failed to cancel the Connections stating that the connection are already installed and activated.

    Though the complainant not received SIM Cards, the Opposite parties started issuing bills and demanded rentals vide bills dated 11-05-2008 amounting to Rs.938/-, 11-06-2008 amounting for Rs. 1,792/- Covering period from 09-05-2008 to 08-06-2008

    The personal representation and written representation dated 16-04-2008 and 04-07-2008 of the complainant for cancellation of connection did not filed any result. The demand of Opposite Party No.1 through his staff for payment of the bills in the working hours of the complainant disturbing his work amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice hence prayed to the Hon’ble Forum 1) to direct the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 to cancel the connections from the date of application for cancellations and to return the deposit amount of Rs.3,500/- paid by the complainant, 2) to restrain the Opposite party from collecting bills dated 11-05-2008 and 11-06-2008 for Rs.938 and 1,492 respectively and also not to issue fur their bills, 3) to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony along with costs of the complaint.


    4. Opposite Party No.1 & 2 filed a Common Counter admitting that the Complainant has subscribed to the company’s executive for company 7 executive and Paid Rs.3,500/- but denied all the other allegations of the complainant materially contending that 12-04-2008 itself login was done. After credit verification the Connection were activated on the same day.


    5. Further contended that the Complainant refused to take SIM cards from the their sales Executive who approached him on false advise of his friends & colleagues and failed to use SIM Cards after activation No application for Cancellation of Connection is received from the complainant.

    As there was no specific request from the ;complainant for disconnection, bills are generated for unused rentals and the complainant is bound to pay the same.


    6. Finally, contended that all the allegation of the complainant are baseless and hence prayed to dismiss the complainant with exemplary costs; in the ends of justice.

    7. During the enquiry the both parties lead their evidence by filing their affidavit Ex.A1 to A6 documents are marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents marked on behalf of Opposite Party.

    8. Heard arguments of both side Advocates.

    9. The points for consideration are :

    1)Whether there is deficiency in service on lthe part of Opposite Parties 1 & 2 to the complainant?
    2)Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed for ?

    10.POINT No.1 :- It is admitted by both parties that the complainant applied for 7 Connections under guoup plan of the Opposite Party on 10-04-2008 and paid required amount of Rs.3,500/- to the Opposite Party. The point of dispute is the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties for non cancellation of Connection even after his oral and written representation dated 16-04-2008 and also demand of rental payment for the unused connection and in evidence filed his affidavit and Ex.A1 to A6 documents.

    The Opposite party totally denied the allegation of the complainant stating that the no application for cancellation of connection was received by them and unless the connections are authorizedly disconnected at the specific written request of the customer the bills will be generated for unused rentals and the complainant is bound to pay the same once activation is done.
    Heard arguments of both sides and perused the material on record.
    Ex.A1 (the application form) clearly go to proove that the complainant on 10-04-2008 applied for 7 TATA Indicom Connections and paid Rs.3,500/- as charges.

    Ex.A2 dated 16-04-2008 clearly go to prove the averments of the complainant, that ;the complainant gave written representation for cancellation of installation/subscription and requested for refund of deposit amount within a week of subscription. Hence the allegation of the Opposite Parties that the complainant has not given any written representation for cancellation of subscription is false. The Opposite Party in their affidavit evidence also admitted that the complainant has not used the phone ExA3 & Ex.A4 the bills for May & June Months the user charges are nill.


    11. In View of the above fore mentioned reasons we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party in issuing bills dated 11-05-2008 & 11-06-2008 and demanding payment even after receiving written representation on 16-04-2008.

    Accordingly this Point goes in favor of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties.
    12. POINT No.2 :- In View of the reasons mentioned in foregoing Point No.1 We are ;of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled for the following reliefs.

    The Opposite Parties are directed to cancel the 7 group Connections of complainant and also the bills dated 11-05-2008 and 11-06-2008 for Rs.938 and Rs.1,792 respectively. The complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony along with Rs.2,000/- as costs of the complaint.

    Accordingly this point also goes in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties.




    IN THE RESULT, the complaint is allowed partly as under:


    The Opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally are directed to

    1)Cancel the 7 group connections of the complainant and also the bills dated 11-05-2008 and 11-06-2008 for Rs.938 and Rs.1,792/- respectively.

    2)To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing inconvenience and mental agony.

    3)And also to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of the complaint.

    4)Time One month to comply from the date of receipt of order copy.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,988

    Default

    Consumer Case No.92/2008
    Between:-
    Khaja Minhajuddin,
    S/o.Md.Kareemuddin, aged about: 37 years,
    Occ:Engineer, Resident of
    H.No.16-02-147/A, Anand Nagar,
    New Malakpet, Hyderabad-36. …Complainant


    And


    TATA Teleservices Limited
    Khan Lateef Khan Estate,
    Opp:Fateh Maidan,
    Hyderabad. ....Opposite Party

    This case coming on 17-03-2009 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri Md.Muneeruddin Counsel for Complainant and Sri C.Niranjan Rao, advocate for the opposite party, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum pronounced the following:-

    O R D E R

    (Per Hon’ble Member, Smt. Lakshmi Makena on behalf of Bench)

    1. This is a Complaint filed by the Complainant under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, to direct the opposite party not to claim any amount arising out of bill dated 13-09-2007 and subsequent bills arising out of unilateral activation without activating the instrument, for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and suffering and for costs.


    2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that he is a consumer of the Telephone service with the Telephone No.9246153419 provided by the opposite party.


    3. While so, the opposite party issued a bill for Rs.1995/- for the period from 13-06-2004 to 12-07-2004. Though he issued a legal notice, there was no reply. He filed C.D.No.1275 of 2004 on the file of this Forum and the same was dismissed. He preferred F.A.No.1142/2005 and the A.P. State Commission in its order dated 18-05-2007 set aside the orders of the District Forum and directed the opposite party to appoint an arbitrator and decide the dispute with regard to the excess bill and to restore the Phone connection. The complainant preferred revision to the National Commission and the same is pending.


    4. While so, the opposite party issued a letter dated 11-07-2007 enclosing the letter dated 27-06-2007 to the effect that as per the orders of the A.P. State Commission the Phone Connection of the complainant was activated and that the hand set needed up gradation. When the complainant approached for up gradation, he was told that his instrument was not up-gradable as it was an old one. However, the opposite party sent a bill for Rs.277/- dated 13-09-2007 for the instrument, which was never up-graded or activated and as such it would constitute deficiency in service and abuse of the orders of the A.P. State Commission. However, the complainant gave a letter dated 24-09-2007 seeking de-activation of his telephone, but the opposite party again issued a bill for Rs.93/- dated 13-10-2007. It amounts to deficiency in service.

    5. One Mr.Veeraraghavan, a retired District Judge was appointed as the arbitrator by the opposite party to decide the dispute with regard to the excess bill, but the opposite party issued the legal notices dated 11-07-2007 and 13-08-2007 and threatened with Civil and Criminal action. This also amounts to deficiency in service. Subsequently also the opposite party got issued the letters dated 26-09-2007, 18-10-2007, 10-10-2007, and the bill dated 13-10-2007 demanding the bill amount even while the arbitration proceedings were in progress. Hence the complaint.


    6. The opposite party in the written version admitted the material facts as alleged in the complaint. The positive case of the opposite party is that the complainant had obtained the telephone connection by opting the scheme of the monthly rental of Rs.450/-, which had 400 minutes talk time free.

    7. It is further pleaded that due to the change in the inter connection usage charges, new charges came into existence with effect from 01-05-2004. Accordingly, free talk time worth 400 minutes was reduced to free call usage worth Rs.250/- as shown in the invoice dated 13-05-2004. The complainant fell due a sum of Rs.2,272-89 ps. but he paid 2,112/- after the due date. There after invoices were issued for the subsequent period. The complainant failed to clear them.


    8. The filing of the C.D.1275/2004 before this Forum, its dismissal, filing of the appeal before the State Commission, order of the State Commission to appoint an arbitrator to decide the dispute with regard to the excess bill, the restoration of the telephone connection as per the orders of the State Commission, and the activation of the telephone connection of the complainant all are admitted.


    9. It is further pleaded that the complainant was advised to contact the customer care department of the opposite party services for up grading the hand set in their letter dated 27-06-2007. Even after receiving the said letter, the complainant did not approach the opposite party or their employees for up grading the hand set. Thus they provided the services promptly.

    10. The filing of the revision by the complainant before the National Commission against the orders of the A.P. State Commission is also admitted.

    11. It is further pleaded that after the activation of the telephone line, the invoices would be automatically raised by the opposite party claiming the amount due. He is due in a sum of Rs.2,695/- with interest. He is also liable to pay the rental charges for the period from 11-08-2007 to 10-09-2007, which comes to Rs. 278.66 p.s. As per clause No.14 of the service agreement entered by the complainant, the dispute would have to be referred to the arbitrator. The complainant should have referred the matter to the arbitrator and this Forum would have no Jurisdiction.


    12. It is further pleaded that the opposite party issued legal notices demanding payment of out standing dues. It would not amount to deficiency in service. The complainant never contacted the opposite party for up gradation. It is denied that they issued the bills without providing the service. The bill dated 13-09-2007 was issued towards rental of the telephone after activation. The complainant is no larger entitled for any relief as there was no deficiency in service and the opposite party never caused any mental agony.


    13. The rival parties filed their written versions. The complainant, so as to substantiate his case, relied on Exs.A1 to A12, while the opposite party relied on Exs.B1 to B4. (In fact both filed same set of copies in respect of certain documents). Both sides filed their written arguments and also advanced oral arguments.


    14.The points that arise for consideration are:-
    I. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and if so, whether a direction should be issued to them not to claim any amount arising out of bill dated 13-09-2007 and subsequent bills.
    II. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? and if so, to what amount?
    III. To what relief?


    15.Point No.I:- The admitted facts of this case are that the complainant is a customer of the opposite party with the telephone No.9246153419. There was the dispute with regard to the bills issued by the opposite party in the year 2004. The complainant filed a case before this Forum and the same was dismissed. The complainant preferred an appeal before the A.P. State Commission and the A.P. State Commission as seen from its order dated 18-05-2007, while allowing the appeal, directed the opposite party to appoint an arbitrator to decide the dispute with regard to the bills issued. It also directed the opposite party to restore the Telephone connection. Thereafter, as seen from Ex.A2 letter dated 27-06-2007, the opposite party informed the complainant that they activated his Telephone in pursuance of the direction of the A.P. State Commission. They further informed the complainant that in order to effectively use the services, he was required to up grade his hand set. They further informed the complainant to contact one Mr.Auszad Shaik, the customer care officer for the above purpose. In fact, the opposite party addressed Ex.A1 letter also while enclosing the Ex.A2 letter to the complainant. Subsequently, the opposite party got issued the demand notices dated 11-07-2007 (Ex.A3) and 13-08-2007 (Ex.A4) requiring the complainant to pay the arrears relating to the year 2007. These letters have nothing to do with the dispute relating to the earlier proceedings. Any how, issuing the demand notices and cautioning the complainant with Civil and Criminal action cannot be considered as deficiency in service. After all, they have such a right to issue demand notices and legal notices to the customers who commit default in payment of bill amounts.


    16. Under Ex.A5, the opposite party informed the complainant that they had appointed one Mr.Veeraraghavan, a retired District Judge as the arbitrator in pursuance to the directions of the A.P. State Commission. The complainant in his reply notice under Ex.A6 informed the opposite party that he moved the National Commission as against the orders of the State Commission in appointing an arbitrator. Subsequently, the opposite party issued Ex.A7 bill dated 13-09-2007 requiring the complainant to pay the monthly rental and other charges of Rs.278.66 p.s. As seen from the cause of action paragraph of the complainant, the issuance of Ex.A7 bill dated 13-09-2007 prompted him to file this case. He also referred to the lawyer’s notice dated 10-10-2007 as the one of the causes for him to file this complaint. We have already observed that issuance of a legal notice threatening with Civil and Criminal action cannot be considered as illegal or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. With regard to monthly rental charges as claimed under Ex.A7, we opine that there is no illegality or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. After all, pursuant to directions of the A.P. State Commission., they reactivated the telephone of the complainant and naturally they would have to charge the monthly rentals. So, there is no illegality or unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing Ex.A7 bill demanding the rental charges.


    17. As seen from Ex.A8 letter addressed by the complainant himself, he admitted that the executives of the opposite party visited his house so as to up grade his hand set. The complainant suppressed this fact in his complaint. It is further written in this letter that his hand set was spoiled and as such he requested the opposite party to disconnect the service. This letter is dated 24-09-2007, which is subsequent to Ex.A7 bill. So, it is quite evident that by the dated Ex.A8 date of 24-09-2007 he had the service connection. As already noted, the complainant has suppressed all these details in his complaint. It should not be forgotten that these are all the documents produced and relied on by the complainant himself. He also produced Ex.A9, the notice issued by the arbitrator to attend the arbitration proceedings. Ex.A10 is another such letter addressed by the arbitrator requiring him to attend the arbitration proceedings. The opposite party got issued Ex.A11, another demand notice. The complainant if aggrieved, could have invoked the arbitration clause and could have approached the arbitrator, who was already on the job requesting him to adjudicate the correctness of the subsequent bills issued to him by the opposite party. It is not the case of the complainant that the National Commission has granted state of arbitration proceedings. He has the approached this Forum unnecessarily and as against the directions of the A.P. State Commission. The opposite party filed the copies of the bills in respect of which, the arbitrator has at to decide.


    18. Thus, viewed in any angle we have to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Issuing a demand notice or a legal notice cannot be termed as deficiency on service or unfair trade practice. The opposite party is not wrong in issuing a demand notice dated 13-09-2007(Ex.A7) demanding the monthly rental of the phone after reactivation. The complainant cannot direct the opposite party not to make any claim in respect of the bill amount or the arrears due from him. If, he has any dispute with regard to the bills issued, he could, as well, approach the arbitrator, who has already initiated proceedings.
    This point is answered against the complainant.


    19.Point No.II:- When there is no deficiency in service as opined by us while, answering point No. I, the question of payment of compensation to the complainant does not arise. So, we cannot award any compensation against the opposite party.

    20.Point No.III:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed with an observation that the complainant, if aggrieved by Ex.A7 bill or other bills issued subsequent to the disposal of the F.A.No.1142/2005 on the file of A.P. State Commission to approach the arbitrator, who has already been appointed and who has already initiated the arbitration proceedings to adjudicate and decide the correctness or otherwise of those bills. There is no order as to costs.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,988

    Default TATA Indicom

    CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 03 / 2009


    S. Srikanth, S/o S. Kameswara Rao, aged 21 years,
    Student, Resident of H.No. A1/2, Chinnachowk,
    Kadapa – 516 002. ….. Complainant.
    Vs.

    1) The Manager, Tata Indicom Company,
    KLK Street, Beside L.B. Stadium, Basheerabagh,
    Hyderabad.

    2) Branch Manager, “BIG-C”, T-Nagar, Rajahamundry,
    East Godavari district.

    3) Branch Manager, TATA INDICOM HUB,
    7 Roads Circle, Kadapa – 516 002. ….. Respondents.

    This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 7-4-2009 in the presence of the complainant in person and Sri K.B. Venkata Sivaiah, Advocate for R1 and R2 & R3 called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
    O R D E R


    (Per Sri S. Abdul Khader Basha, Member),

    1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

    2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant is the subscriber of Tata Indicom. There are so many offers which cost less charges when called from Tata phone to Tata phone. Tata phones are CDMA phone i.e. only the SIM card of Tata alone works in it. The complainant bought CDMA phone and also a plan named “GO POWER”. There are different plans but they are to New SIM cads only. He was told that there is an offer known as “GO Power” which is valid for one year in which he will be charged 49 Ps to any local mobile and 39 Ps and 29 ps during day and night respectively from the Tata balance only. There is a recharge coupon worth of Rs. 50/- for which Rs. 150/- talk time from Tata to Tata is available. More over for the subscribers of Tata “Go Power” plans they will deduct 39 Ps and 29 Ps during day and night respectively and will be deduct from that Rs. 150/-. But not from the main balance. Thus he bought the SIM card of “Go Power” offer numbered 9291606159 with SIM card number A 0000 0061 5DOB (80 73 40 26) on 16-4-2008 from “BIG-C”, T-Nagar, Rajhmundry, East Godavari district.

    3. There is hike in the price of the recharge card, and it was changed and the value of recharge card that became 150 minutes instead of Rs. 150/-. Thus, the subscribers of the “Go Power” plan now can’t enjoy 39 Ps and 29 Ps during night and day respectively from Tata to Tata balance. This change of value of recharge card from Rs. 150/- to 150 minutes is exactly during the examinations of the complainant i.e. during November. All of sudden he found the main balance is Rs. “0”. He asked the customer care Executive regarding call charges and he found his recharge card worth of Rs. 60/- was finished after 150 minutes instead of about 420 minutes. The change of recharge card tariff is without any notice to the complainant. During his examinations he felt mental agony as he could not call his parents, family members and friends in time. He felt great amount of inconvenience and also could not find any information regarding this change for 2 days. There is clear proof of unfair trade practice and negligence towards the complainant and other subscribers without giving any notice. The purpose of the plan cannot be served now, which he was told that it would be for one year by the customer care Executive. The cause of action arose in the month of November 2008 when the Tata Indicom changed its balance without any notice to the complainant. The Tata Indicom is carrying out its business all over India and also having branch office at Kadapa, so this forum is having jurisdiction. The complainant requested this forum to allow the complaint directing the respondents to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and costs of the complaint.

    4. R1 filed a counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and the complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations which are exclusively denied by the opposite parties. Opposite party obtained license from Government of India through department of Telecommunications to maintain, establish and to operate telecommunication services in the state of Andhra Pradesh. As per guidelines of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The respondent company is bound to follow the directions, regulations, guidelines issued by the above authority. The Opposite party launched a tariff plan card “Go Power for the benefit of its prepaid subscribers in the following tariff.
    Starter packs
    Go Power
    Circles
    Rest of India
    Starter pack (RS)
    199
    Talktime (Rs.)
    2
    Validity
    1 years
    Daily debit (Rs)
    1
    Bundled offer
    Free calls to local Tata Phones

    NA
    Validity (Days)
    Free local SMS (Rs.)
    -
    Validity (Days)
    -
    Pulse (Rs./mim)
    Local – to Tata Phones
    0.39
    Local – to tata pones (Night
    0.19
    Local – to all other mobile
    0.49
    Local – to all other mobile (Night)
    0.49
    Local – to all other LL
    0.99
    STD calls
    2.49
    ILD
    17.20
    Roaming incoming call
    1.75
    Roaming out going local call
    1.40
    Roaming outgoing NLD call
    2.40
    SMS local
    .100
    SMS National
    2.00
    SMS International
    5.00
    Voice station Tariffs
    6.00

    This scheme was highly useful to the customers and it was highly welcomed by the users throughout India. Further these schemes are launched after due approvals from Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. In the present case the complainant has totally misconceived the case and trying to club two different officers the Opposite party namely the current “Go Power” with an add on pack scheme. The Opposite party has not withdrawn any benefits as applicable to the Go power scheme / plan. It also offered an add on pack as an option to the customers with benefits like Rs. 60/- is the value of the RCV which gives Rs. 150/- talk time to make calls to local tata phones valid for 30 days. The same was revised with a value proposition of 150 minutes calling to local tata phone. This revision had been effected after due consent and approval from TRAI. There is no change in the main starter kit namely “Go Power” and if the customers are willing to go for any add on pack means additional benefits as mentioned in the add on recharge vouchers. The complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions in the customer application form which clearly stated any clause – 5 that the subscriber is bound to obey the terms and conditions subject to the provisions of TRAI. The other allegations which are not specifically denied are deemed to be denied may be read as part and parcel of this written version. The complainant is not entitled for the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled for costs as no cause of action arose for the present complaint and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    5. R2 & R3 were called absent and set exparte on 6-3-2009.

    6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
    i.Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
    ii.To what relief?


    7. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 is marked and on behalf of the respondent Ex. B1 is marked. Written arguments filed by the complainant. Oral arguments were heard from both sides.

    8. Point No. 1 Ex. A1 is the original document of offer of Go Power starter kit T - SIM pack in the name of the complainant. Ex. B1 is the Xerox copy of terms and conditions. As could be seen from the written arguments of the complainant, almost all the averments of the counter of R1 have been admitted by the complainant and there is no adequate proof in support of the allegations and claim of the complainant. The complainant appeared to have misconceived the issue in question and trying to club two different offers namely Go Power with add on pack scheme. According to the counter of R1 the Opposite party has not withdrawn any benefits as applicable to the “Go Power” scheme. It also offered an add on pack as an option to the customers with a benefit like Rs. 60/- is the value of the recharge vouchers that gives Rs. 150/- talk time to make calls to tata phones valid for 30 days and this was revised with a value proposition of 150 minutes calling to local Tata pones. This revision was affected after obtaining due approval from TRAI. There is no change in the main starter kit namely Go Power and if the complainant is willing to go for any add on pack means additional benefit as mentioned in the add on recharge vouchers. In view of giving consent by the complainant in the application form that he agreed to the terms and conditions of the opposite party vide clause – 5 that the subscriber (complainant) is bound to obey the terms and conditions subject to the provisions of TRAI. There are no merits in the complaint and the complainant deserves no consideration.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,988

    Default TATA Indicom

    K.V. Johny
    S/o. Varghese
    Clarity Xerox
    Opp. Railway Divisional Office
    Kallekulangara (P.O)
    Olavakkode
    Palakkad. - Complainant
    (Adv. G. Shaji)
    V/s


    1. Tata Tele Services Ltd
    Managed by Tata Logistic India (P) Ltd
    XI/426, HMT Road
    Kalamassery
    Kochi – 683 503
    ( Adv. Vinod.K. Kayanad)

    2. The Manager
    Explorer Communications
    Opp. Kalyan Tourist Home
    G B Road
    Palakkad. - Opposite parties

    O R D E R
    By Smt. A.K. Bhanumathi, Member
    The case of the complainant in short is as follows:
    The Petitioner was running a public telephone booth and xerox copier centre for his livilihood. The complainant further intended to start a smart PCO under Tata Indicom on bonus scheme as offered by the Ist Opposite party. Along with the PTB Operatorship applications, the complainant sent a demand draft for Rs.7,102/- on 04/10/2005 to the Ist Opposite party. Later on 10/10/2005 the Ist Opposite party despatched a Booth Pedestral and link well with battery to the complainant. The complainant installed the above equipments in his telephone booth and operated the PTB till 22/12/2007. When the complainant realized that he is unable to generate reasonable revenue from the service , he decided to exit from the Tata Indicom operatorship and applied for disconnection of the system. Thereby the complainant approached the distributor, the second Opposite party on
    - 2 -
    24/02/2007 and returned the PCO connection device to the second Opposite party. The complainant intimated his intention to breakup the operatorship and thereby sought termination of the agreement between the Ist Opposite party and complainant, entered under bonus scheme. After termination of the agreement due to any reason at anytime, the first Opposite party is liable to return the refundable deposit of an amount of Rs.6,000/- plus Rs.1,102/- to the complainant. The complainant further states that there is no outstanding in the operators account. The booth pedestral and the link well with battery are in the safe custody of the complainant. Even after the return of PCO connection device to the IInd Opposite party and the demand of the return of refundable deposit from the Ist Opposite party to the complainant, the Ist Opposite party has neither taken back the equipments from the complainant nor returned the deposit amount of Rs.6,000/- plus Rs.1,102/- to the complainant. Complainant sent a lawyer notice to the Ist Opposite party to return the refundable amount and take back the equipments. The Ist Opposite party accepted the notice but no steps was taken . Thereby the Opposite parties committed deficiency in service and their acts amounts to unfair trade practice. The acts of the Opposite parties caused a lot of mental agony and loss to the complainant. Thus the complainant is seeking an order to directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.7,102/- and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.


    The complaint was admitted. Opposite parties notice served. Ist Opposite party entered appearance and IInd Opposite party was set ex-parte.


    Ist Opposite party filed version with the following contentions. The complainant approached the IInd Opposite party and returned the PCO connection device etc are not intimated to the Ist Opposite party. The complainant sent a letter dated 05.02.2008 asking for the refund of the deposit for which Ist Opposite party sent a reply stating that the deposit will be refunded within one month of return of equipments and accessories subject to return as delivered. Moreover Ist Opposite party's officials approached the complainant several times to retrieve his grievance but he is not ready to settle it amicably. Hence there is no deficiency in service and no unfair trade practice on the part of Ist opposite party. Thus the complaint is liable to the dismissed with cost to the opposite party.


    Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibit A1-A5 were marked on their side. Ist Opposite party filed affidavit.




    - 3 -
    The issues for consideration are:

    1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the party of the opposite party ?

    2. If so, what is the cost and reliefs ?

    We perused the relevant records. The contention of the complainant is that after depositing the PCO connection device the Ist Opposite party is liable to return the refundable deposit amount to the complainant. In their reply notice Opposite party states that the deposit will be refunded within one month of return of equipments. The document Exhibit A1 produced by the complainant clearly states that “Upon termination of the Agreement due to any reason, the said properties of TTSL shall be returned to the TTSL by the operator. At the time of termination of this agreement by either party the deposit amount shall be refunded to the operator after deducting any damages to TTSL property and any outstanding against the operators account. According to our view the complainant ought to have returned the devices first and then claim the refundable amount as per the agreement.


    From the above discussions we are of the view that as the complainant has not followed the provisions of the Bonus scheme agreement properly. The act of the Opposite parties will not amount to deficiency of service.


    In the result complaint dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,988

    Default TATA Indicom

    ORDER
    By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President

    The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:

    On 19/9/05 the complainant bought a Mobile phone by model KYO Cera PBR/KX 444 for Rs.2999/- from the 1st respondent and had availed number as 9249400650. But the phone got complaints and did not function properly. When he contacted the customer care he was advised to bring the mobile phone to the 2nd respondent and he entrusted the phone on 3/3/2006 for repair. But it was not repaired by the 2nd opposite party and retuned the phone on 22/4/08. When he contacted with the 1st respondent they agreed to repair the phone and return it within two days. So the complainant entrusted the phone to the 1st respondent. But the phone has not been returned so far and still remains with the 1st respondent. Having contacted with the 2nd respondent through Internet it was told that the phone will be returned after rectifying the defects by the 1st opposite party. But it was not returned so far. Hence this complaint is filed to refund the price with interest and also for compensation.

    2. The respondents 1 and 2 were called absent and declared exparte.


    3. The 3rd respondent has filed version to the following effect. It is true that the complainant availed mobile phone connection. The 3rd opposite party provided the telephone connection and the disputed instrument was sold by the 1st opposite party. And if at all any repair is needed to the instrument it is to be done by the 2nd opposite party. Since the 3rd respondent is not having any connection with the instrument there was no consumer relation with the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service. On receipt of the complaint regarding the malfunctioning of the instrument the 3rd opposite party directed the complainant to approach 2nd respondent. Hence dismiss the complaint.

    4. The points for consideration are
    1)Is there any deficiency in service committed by the respondents ?
    2)If so reliefs and costs ?

    5. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P3 only.

    6. Points : The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a mobile phone from the 1st respondent for Rs.2999/-. And he got a phone connection from the 3rd respondent. His intention in availing the mobile connection is to carry out his business effectively. But he could use the phone only for a few months. Later due to defects of the instrument he could not use the phone. Even though he approached the 2nd respondent who is the authorized service agency of the 3rd respondent, they did not care to cure the defects. The complainant approached 1st respondent also, but no remedy so far.

    7. So according to the complainant the handset purchased by him was not in a position to use because of its defect. He had entrusted the mobile phone to 1st respondent on 27/4/06 but it was not returned so far. When he had contacted the 3rd respondent through internet service they replied to solve the problem within 48 hours. Exhibits P2 and P3 reveal this fact. In the counter the 3rd respondent taken the view that regarding the instrument the 3rd respondent is not having any connection and there is no consumer relation with the 3rd respondent.


    8. According to them on receipt of the complaint regarding the malfunctioning of the instrument they directed the complainant to approach the 2nd respondent for the repair of the instrument. So according to them there is no deficiency in service on their part. So there is admission from 3rd respondent that the product was defective. So no other evidence is necessary to arrive at a conclusion that the product was defective. There is nothing to disbelieve the case of complainant. Exhibit P1 evidences the cost of phone. It is a serious deficiency in service on the part of 1st respondent in non returning the phone. The mobile phone was purchased from 1st respondent and entrusted for repair also. It is their duty to deliver the same after due repair within a reasonable period. But it was not done by 1st respondent. It is a serious deficiency in service on their part and the 1st respondent only liable to compensate the complainant.

    9. In the result complaint is allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to pay Rs.2,999/-(Rupees Two thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only), the cost of the mobile phone and Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as costs within one month.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,988

    Default Tata Indicom

    Complainant:


    Mr. Amit Kumar
    Age 24, No.13, 1st Floor
    12th Cross, Someshwara Layout
    Bilekahalli
    Bangalore- 560 076



    /vs/





    Opposite Party:

    M/s. Tata Communication
    No.21, The Beary’s Horizon
    2nd Floor, Wood Street
    Opposite to Brigade Tower
    Bangalore- 560 025
    R/by its Nodal Officer
    (Priya Chakdravarthy)



    O R D E R



    SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:

    This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the refund of an amount of Rs.1,500/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs

    The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is one of the customers of TATAINDICOM Broadband. He has taken the interest connection on 13th December of 2008 with HP COLOR PRINTER according to their offer. The tariff plan was GOLD 3499 PACKAGE WITH INFINITY 256 THE OFFER PRICE WAS Rs.3,932/- (Rs.3499 + 12.36% SERVICE TAX). He has paid this amount through the cheque of SBI (his cheque No.is 494277 and my A/c no. of SBI is 30279375491). At the time of internet connection they did no provide him HP COLOR PRINTER but assured him to give it within one month. Till now 7 weeks have already past neither the customer care nor the sales person is able to provide the HP COLOUR PRINTER after his so many frequent reminder to them, but till now he has not received his HP COLOUR PRINTER. Hence the complainant approached this forum.

    Notice was sent to the OP under RPAD and the same was served on it. On the date of version neither Op appeared nor filed its statement of objection even though called twice. Hence Op placed ex-parte. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments of the complainant.

    Complainant specifically on oath stated about the taking of internet connection with HP Colour Printer. The receipt produced by the complainant completely corroborates the evidence of the complainant. The pamphlet of the Op clearly discloses the supply of free HP colour printer with Broadband connection was taken. After connecting the internet, Op failed to supply the HP Colour printer inspite of several calls made by the complainant. When the OP has agreed to supply the HP Colour Printer along with internet connections and when it has received the amount it is the bounden duty of the OP to supply the same after giving connections. But inspite of several request made by the complainant, OP never bothered to supply of HP colour printer. This sort of an act on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.

    This fact has not been specifically denied by the Op. Even though the notice was served, they remained absent and failed to submit its statement of objection to rebut the evidence of the complainant. In the absence of specific denial by the Op, the evidence given by the complainant is unchallenged.

    In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we pass the following order.

    O R D E R
    Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) to the complainant towards the cost of HP Colour Printer to the complainant with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and this amount is to be paid to the complainant within 40 days from the date of this order.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,988

    Default Tata Indicom

    Complainant:

    PYRODYNAMICS
    No.304, 3rd Floor
    Suraj Plaza
    No.196/8, 25th Cross
    8th F Main
    Jayanagar 3rd Block
    Bangalore- 560 011



    /vs/




    Opposite Party:


    The Director
    Tata Communications
    The Horizon, 2nd Floor
    No.21, Woodstreet
    Opp. Brigade Towers
    Bangalore – 560 025
    R/by Mr. Ravi Prasad

    O R D E R



    SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:

    This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short)for the payment of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of business expenses of Rs.15,000/-, expenses of Rs.25,000/- towards intimation given to their customers. Court expenses of Rs.15,000/- with compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

    The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased a Broad Band Internet Connection from TATA COMMUNICATIONS-Bangalore in August 2005. This was a cabled based Broad Band Connection. Internet connection/E-Mail id:Pyro-ravi@eth.net. Since Aug. 2005 to date complainant paid in full all the bills of Tata Communications. In July 2008, Tata Communications changed the connection from Cable Based Broad Band Connection to Wireless Broad Band Connection-WIMAX. They themselves visited Pyrodynamics and made the changes and installed antennae outside complainant office.

    On December 30th 2008, Tata Communications TERMINATED the internet connection without our knowledge or without our consent. Their e-mail Pyro ravi @ eth.net is in use since August 2005 and all of a sudden their e-mail termination has put her in huge inconvenience. No e-mails could be sent or received from this account since 30th December 2008. On 31st December complainant spoke to their call centre-66600121 and one Mr. Naresh arrogantly informed that their connection is TERMINATED. They requested for an explanation and all that he said was “his job is to say what appears on his computer monitor and computer says TERMINATED and it is not his business to explain the problem. Reason for Termination – pyro-ravi@eth.net is a cabled broad band connection and all cabled broad band connections are terminated. On contrary TATA COMMUNICATIONS themselves changed the connection from cabled Broad Band to WIMAX in July 2008 itself and Mr Naresh did not accept the facts.

    Complainant sent e-mails to customerservice@ tatacommunciations.com On Jan. 1st 2009 they received an e-mail response from Mr. Mazahar stating that the problem is looked into and will be sorted out soon. Till evening of Jan. 1st the problem was not sorted out. Another e-mail was sent on Jan. 1st to customerservice@ tatacommunciations.com. 2nd Jan 2009 complainant received the same e-mail response from Mr. Mazahar stating that the problem is looked into and will be sorted out soon. 2nd Jan. 2009 Mr. Raviprasad of complainant visited Tata Communications office to explain the problem. The problem was explained to Mrs. Maria. The letter sent by Pyrodynamics was not accepted and returned back to complainant. Mrs. Maria assured us that the problem will be sorted out.

    AGAIN THE EXPLAINATION WAS ‘PROBLEM IS TECHNICAL AS pyro-ravi@eth.net IS A CABLED BROAD BAND CONNECTION AND DUE TO RECHNICAL REASONS ALL CABLED BROAD BAND CONNECTIONS ARE TERMINATED. Although Tata Communications themselves changed it to WIMAX in July 2008. Mrs. Maria accepted that in July 2008 the connection was changed from Cabled Broad Band to WIMAX and assured that in one working day the connection will be restored. 3rd Jan 2009 – Connection was not yet restored. The complainant called Mrs. Maria 2 times and she assured us that the connection will be restored by evening.

    5th Jan. 2009 the Internet connection was not yet restored and they spoke to Mrs. Maria. Of the 3 times complainant called her, twice she did not pick up the phone. She confirmed
    - Our internet connection is TERMINATED and cannot be restored.
    - If Pyrodynamics wants internet, we have to apply for one more
    connection.
    - The reason for TERMINATION IS Technical since we use Cabled Broad
    Band connection.
    - Our e mail id also cannot be activated
    - Nothing can be done.

    At no time Tata communications gave them any proper explanation nor restored their internet connection. It is all their fault. Complainant has been using this e-mail id since Aug. 2005 and all their customers have registered this e-mail id in their records. Complainant had important e-mails sent by their customers to them on these days and they incurred huge as they lost a huge amount of sales opportunities. Hence the complainant approached this forum.

    Notice was sent to OP under RPAD and the same was served on it. On the date of version, none appeared on behalf of Op, even though called twice and no one represented them. Hence, OP placed ex-parte. Complainant gave its evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments of the complainant.

    The complainant specifically on oath stated about the purchase of Broad Band Internet connections from OP it was a Cabled Based Broad Band connection. On the perusal of the e-mail correspondences, it is discloses that the OP has terminated the internet connections on the ground that changed the connections from Cabled Based Broad Band Connection to the Wireless Broad Band Connections WIMAX. The question arises whether the OP has intimated the change of connection and whether it has intimated after the change of connection. The complainant has to take fresh connection. The Op has not produced any terms and conditions when the Broad Band Connection was given during 2005. The OP has not intimated the complainant before changing the connection of wireless Broad Band Connection and its terms and conditions. It is a unilateral decision taken by the Op at the time of changing the Broad Band Connection to wireless connection during July 2008. Even though, the OP has taken the unilateral decision. It is the primary obligation on the part of the Op to take consent of the customers in respect of their option for the change of connection. But the OP has not taken any action or permission from the customers. When the complainant has paid an amount for the cabled based Broad Band Connection, it is the bounden duty of the OP to continue the same if option is not given by the complainant for the change of connection. But the Op unilaterally terminated the connection without the consent of the complainant. Naturally, the complainant suffered loss due to termination of business contact with its customers. This sort of an act on the part of the OP definitely amounts to deficiency in service.

    These facts have not been specifically denied by the OP, even though the notice was served on OP, it remained absent and failed to submit its statement of objection to rebut the evidence of the complainant. In the absence of specific denial by the Op, the evidence given by the complainant is unchallenged.

    Complainant has claimed Rs.50,000/- towards loss of business and Rs.25,000/- in respect of informing their customers. The complainant has not produced any supporting of his claim. However, the OP has sustained some loss due to immediate termination of the connection without information.

    In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we pass the following order.

    O R D E R
    Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay consolidated amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default Tata

    Phani Ramakrishna

    W/o Late Ramakrishna,

    A/a 68 yrs, R/at Flat No.MIG

    C-3-31, Building No.136,

    Ground Floor, KHB Colony

    Shirke Apartment, Kengeri,

    Satelite Town, Bangalore-60.

    …. Complainant.

    V/s



    TATA TELE SERVICES LTD.,

    Post Box No.9542,

    Silicon Terraces,

    Koramangala, VI Block

    P.O., Bangalore – 560 095.

    …. Opposite Party


    -: ORDER:-



    This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party to take back the land line phone instrument and mobile phone set and refund the security deposit amount with interest at 10% Per Annum and to refund the bill amount collected without providing telephone service from June – 2008 to 27/09/2008 and to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant.

    2. The case of the complainant is as under:-

    On 07/06/2005 the complainant deposited Rs.1,000/- with the Opposite Party towards security deposit and got the landline connection for telephone No.65596995.

    Again the Opposite Party collected Rs.950/- on 13/07/2005 and Rs.225 on 06/09/2005. In November 2007 the representative of the Opposite Party approached the complainant and delivered a Mobile Handset of the value of Rs.2,000/- stating that it is a DEEPAVALI Festival compliment to the Customers, there is no rent for one year and the price of the handset will be collected in installments through the monthly bills. Though the complainant was not willing to accept the offer, the representative of the Opposite Party forcibly handed over the Mobile handset and issued the delivery challan dated:09/11/2007 and gave connection to the Mobile bearing No.9243043395. The Opposite Party collected Rs.266/- towards installment from 04/12/2007 to 18/09/2008 and in a total sum of Rs.2926/-. The complainant was not using the Mobile, but was availing the land line telephone service.

    She was making payment of the telephone bills through cheque drawn on Sir M.Vishveswaraiah Co-Operative Bank limited, Kengeri Satelite Town Branch, and was sending the cheque through speed post to the Opposite Party within the due date. On 16/06/2008 the Opposite Party disconnected the landline without prior information or notice. On enquiry, the Koramangala office of the Opposite Party informed that they have not received the amount towards bill dated:27/05/2008 for Rs.682/-. Thereupon the complainant approached the Post Office at Kengeri and obtained the Speed Post delivery report, which disclosed that the article has been delivered to the Opposite Party on 06/06/2008. In order to avoid misuse of the cheque, she also intimated the Bank to stop payment of the said cheque and requested the Opposite Party to set right the telephone service immediately. But the Opposite Party did not consider the oral request of the complainant.

    She gave representation on 01/07/2008 and 31/07/2008 to provide telephone connection, but the Opposite Party neglected to provide the same. Therefore, on 04/08/2008 and 12/09/2008 she gave representation to take back both the instrument and to refund the security deposit and also to make full and final settlement of the bills amount which were collected without providing telephone service from 16/06/2008. Though the telephone was disconnected w.e.f. 16/06/2008, the Opposite Party issued the bills and the complainant paid Rs.1,697/- on 07/08/2008 towards the bills dated:27/07/2008 and Rs.266/- on 18/09/2008. The complainant is a senior citizen staying in a flat alone and is totally depending on the telephone services for contacting Doctors, Provision Stores and Medical Shops. In spite of several requests, the Opposite Party failed to render the service. Hence, the complaint.

    3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-

    The contention that the complainant obtained telephone connection bearing No.65596995 in 2005 by depositing Rs.1,000/- towards security deposit is true. The rest of the amount was received towards installation charges and other incidental expenses for giving connection. Only on the request of the complainant, the Mobile connection was provided as she was existing customer. The rest of the allegation in para-3 of the complaint are denied. The Opposite Party has not received the cheque for Rs.682/- so far. The complainant was also informed that they have not received the cheque. The complainant paid Rs.1,697/- on 07/08/2008 towards bill amount for the month of May, June and July 2008 and she paid Rs.266/- on 18/09/2008 towards the bill for the month of August. The complainant has misused the landline as well as the mobile connection. The complainant failed to pay the bill amount of Rs.682/- for the month of May – 2008 and claims that she has sent the cheque towards that amount through Speed Post, but the said cheque is not at all received.

    The bill dated 27/07/2008 for Rs.1,697/- for the period from 25/06/2008 to 24/07/2008 was sent to the complainant and the said amount was paid. That bill included the previous balance also. The bill dated:27/08/2008 for Rs.266/- was raised for the period from 25/07/2008 to 24/08/2008 and the complainant paid that amount also. Due to non-payment of the subsequent bills, the telephone connection was permanently disconnected on 21/09/2008. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for refund of the security deposit. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and therefore the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint.

    4. In support of the respective contentions, both parties have filed their affidavits and have produced copies of documents. We have heard the arguments on both side.

    5. The points for consideration are:-

    1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

    2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

    6. Our findings are:-

    Point No.1 : In the Affirmative

    Point No.2 : As per final order,

    for the following:-

    -:REASONS:-

    7. Admittedly the complainant was availing the telephone service of the Opposite Party since 2005 and she was provided with a Mobile handset in November – 2007. The dispute between the parties arose with regard to the payment towards the bill dated:27/05/2008. Admittedly the said bill was raised for Rs.682/-. The complainant states that towards the payment of the said bill, she sent a cheque drawn on Sir M.Vishveswaraiah Co-Operative Bank Limited, Kengeri Satelite Town Branch and she sent the cheque to the Opposite Parties through Speed Post.

    The Opposite Party has denied for having received the said cheque. But form the copy of the delivery report issued by the Postal Department, it is seen that the complainant booked the article addressed to the Opposite Party on 05/06/2008 and the article was delivered to TATA TELE SERVICES on 06/06/2008. In view of this report given by the Postal Department, it becomes difficult to believe that the Opposite Party did not receive the article containing the cheque issued by the complainant towards payment of the amount for the bill dated:27/05/2008. It appears after receiving the article from the Postal Department, the Opposite Parties have misplaced the article and therefore did not present the cheque for collection and they are putting the blame on the complainant by stating that the cheque was not at all received by them.

    In view of the delivery report issued by the Postal Department, the inference that the article was received by the Opposite Party and the same appears to have been misplaced by them is inevitable. In that case, having misplaced the cheque, the Opposite Party cannot blame the complainant. It is the contention of the complainant that the landline telephone service was disconnected on 16/06/2008 without any information and on enquiry, she was informed that payment towards bill dated:27/05/2008 is not made. Admittedly on receipt of the information from the Opposite Party that they have not received the cheque, the complainant gave stop payment instruction to her Banker and therefore the said cheque drawn for Rs.682/- was not at all honored by the Bank.

    In the version, the Opposite Party has denied for having disconnected the landline connection on 16/06/2008 and at the same time the Opposite Party admits for having raised the bill dated:27/07/2008 for Rs.1,697/- and the said bill also included the previous balance. In Para-6 of the version it is contended that the said bill was towards the bill amount for the months of May, June and July – 2008. It is also stated by the Opposite Party that the till dated:27/08/2008 for Rs.266/- for the period from 25/07/2008 to 24/08/2008 was raised and the complainant made payment of both the bills amount. Therefore, the complainant had cleared all the arrears for the period from May-2008 to August – 2008. The contention of the complainant that the landline telephone was disconnected on 16/06/2008 finds support from the particulars mentioned in the bill dated:27/07/2008 and the subsequent bills, because in the bill dated:27/07/2008 Rs.1,453/- is claimed towards previous balance and Rs.244.17 paise is claimed towards current charges and thus a total sum of Rs.1,697/- is claimed in the said bill.

    But in the particulars of the current charges, no amount is claimed towards usage charges during the period from 25/06/2008 to 24/07/2008 and in the subsequent bills also, no amount is claimed towards usage charges, which makes it clear that subsequent to 16/06/2008, the complainant never made use of the landline telephone and therefore no amount was claimed towards usage charges. This circumstance supports the contention of the complainant that the telephone was disconnected on 16/06/2008. Having regard to the particulars in the bill raised by the Opposite Party subsequent to 16/06/2008, it shall not lie in the mouth of the Opposite Party that the telephone was not disconnected on 16/06/2008. The Opposite Party admits in the version that the bill dated:27/07/2008 included the previous balance also and the complainant paid the bill amount of Rs.266/- towards the bill dated:27/08/2008 which was for the period from 25/07/2008 to 24/08/2008.

    If that is so, the complainant had cleared the entire arrears up to 24/08/2008. In spite of it, the Opposite Party claims that due to non-payment of the subsequent bills, the telephone connection was permanently disconnected on 21/09/2008. When the complainant had cleared the entire arrears up to 24/08/2008, there was no occation for the Opposite Party to disconnect the telephone line permanently on 21/09/2008. It is interesting to note that in spite of permanently disconnecting the landline telephone on 21/09/2008 as contended in Para-9 of the version, the Opposite Party went on raising monthly bills even for the period subsequent to 21/09/2008.

    The complainant has produced the bills dated:27/02/2009 & 27/03/2009 issued by the Opposite Party in respect of the very same telephone number provided to the complainant. It is not explained why in spite of disconnecting the telephone permanently on 21/09/2008, the Opposite Party issued the bills in February and March – 2009. In the letter dated:31/07/2008, 04/08/2008 and 12/09/2008 the complainant consistently requested the Opposite Party to take back the telephone instrument and refund the security deposit. In spite of this request made in the letter dated:31/07/2008, the Opposite Party did not take back the instrument and refund the security deposit to the complainant. Instead of doing so, it went on raising the bills towards rental to the instrument and did not claim anything towards usage charges, because the complainant was not at all using the telephone subsequent to 16/06/2008.

    This act of the Opposite Party in not taking back the telephone instrument and refunding the security deposit to the complainant in spite of the letter dated:31/07/2008 clearly amounts to deficiency in service. When the Customer requested the Opposite Party to take back the instrument and to refund the security deposit, it would have been proper on the part of the Opposite Party to act upon such request and not to claim any amount from the Customer even towards rental for the instrument. Therefore, in our opinion the Opposite Party is not entitled to collect Rs.266/- towards rental for the period from 25/07/2008 to 24/08/2008. Issuing the bills in February & March 2009 in spite of disconnecting the telephone line in September – 2009 and not acting upon the request of the Customer made on 31/07/2008 not only amount to deficiency in service but also amounts to unfair trade practice.

    Therefore, we hold that the complainant is entitled to seek refund of the sum of Rs.266/- paid towards the bill dated:27/08/2008 besides claiming refund of the security deposit. Considering the fact that a lady aged about 68 years was made to knock the door of the Opposite Party several times and thereby she was subjected to inconvenience and mental agony, in our opinion the complainant is also entitled to compensation. We hold that it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.2,000/-. In the result, we pas the following:-

    -:ORDER:-

    1. The complaint is ALLOWED.

    2. The Opposite Party is directed to take back the telephone instruments provided to the complainant and refund the security deposit so also the sum of Rs.266/- paid by the complainant towards bill dated:27/08/2008 with interest thereon at 10% Per Annum from August 2008 till the date of payment. The Opposite Party shall also pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default TATA Communication Internet Services

    Complainant:



    Shivakumar Chikkamath

    No.100/26, Anant Murthy Layout

    Above Vijaya Primary School

    Srinagar

    Bangalore- 560 050

    /vs/


    Opposite Parties:


    TATA Communication and

    Internet Services Ltd.,

    The Horizon, 2nd Floor

    Wood Street, Opp. Brigade Tower

    Bangalore- 560 025

    R/by General Manager


    O R D E R


    This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the refund of an amount of Rs.3,932/-, compensation of Rs.50,000/- with costs and for such other reliefs.



    The brief facts of the case are that the complainant was holding a Wimax connection by TATA Indicom with unlimited broadband connection under the account name “Superkumars’ since 08-Nov. 2008. He had paid the advance rental of 4 months (Rs.3,932/-). The service was fine till 30-Dec.2008. The complainant was not able to use his internet since 31-Dec.08 and further logged a complaint with TIC Ref:8292768. A FE visited his location on 31-Dec and did some primary investigations but was not able to locate the issue. He again visited his location on 02/01/2009 along with Laptop and a spare modem. He again failed to figure out the issue and went back stating he would return back with spare antenna since he suspects the issue with it. He felt ridiculous when he informed complainant through phone that the spare antenna is not available in the spares and he was not sure when exactly it would be available. The complainant felt more embarrassed when he called up the customer care and they informed him that the complaint was already closed stating “customer end PC issue”. They even did not provide him the escalation contact numbers and quoted that the customer care is the single point of contact. A new complaint was lodged upon his request (Ref:8326762).



    The complainant even escalated the issue of Nodal Officer but unfortunately nothing had worked for him. Hence he decided to disconnect the broadband connection and issued a Legal Notice to them before filing consumer complaint on 08/01/2009 to their Appellate Authority requesting for a complete refund of his amount. They further initiated the process of disconnection upon his continuous pressure and follow up. One of the TATA Associate visited his premises on 15-Jan-2009 and collected the equipments (Acknowledgement attached). Later they informed that the entire money cannot be refunded and the process of refund for remaining amount would take 60 days of time which is unacceptable. Hence the complainant approached this forum.



    When the complaint was filed there were two Ops. Complainant filed an application for deleting of Op, as it is not a necessary party accordingly, an order was passed on 22/04/2009 deleting Op1 and proceeded against Op2 only. Notice was served on Op, it remained absent, even though called twice and no one represented the Op. Hence Op placed ex-parte. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments of the complainant.



    Complainant specifically on oath stated about the taking connection of broad band and not able to use the said broad band within one month from the date of its connection. In spite of several requests by the complainant, Op not rectified it or reconnected. The complainant demanded for the refund of the amount and Op also assured by way of sending e-mail during January that it would process the refund of the amount within 60 days. But till the filing of the complaint, Op never bothered to refund the amount and again it has apologized the complainant for the inconvenience caused to him. This clearly discloses that the Op failed to render its proper service to the complainant and even it has failed to refund the amount as assured by it. This sort of an act on the part of the Op definitely amounts to deficiency in its service.



    These facts have not been specifically denied by the Op. Even though, the notice was served on Op, it remained absent and failed to submit its statement of objection to rebut the evidence of the complainant. In fact it became ex-parte. In the absence of specific denial by the Op, the evidence given by the complainant is unchallenged.



    In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we pass the following order.


    O R D E R


    Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,932/- (Rupees Three Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Two only) to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of its deposit to till the date of realization.


    Opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant towards the cost of this litigation and all these amounts are to be paid to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default Tata Indicom

    V.Malathi,

    D/o.T.Balakrishnan Nair,

    Gopasree, Thenur,

    Kottayi Road,

    Parali, Palakkad. - Complainant

    (By Adv.Rajesh Panangad)

    Vs


    1. Hendez Trading Ltd.,

    Authorised Business Associates of

    Tata Tele Services Ltd.,

    P.B.No.70, Balakrishna Complex,

    G.B.Road, Palakkad.

    2. M/s.Tala Tele Services Limited,

    S.L.Plaza,

    Palarivattam,

    Cochin. - Opposite parties

    O R D E R

    Complainant purchased a Tata mobile in the name of Haier on 22/12/06 from the 1st opposite party on payment of Rs.1,400/-. On 23/12/06 itself complainant submitted attested copy of the identity card along with passport size photos as requested by 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party issued a temporary receipt and on the same day itself connection was activated. On 2/01/07 1st opposite party disconnected the connection without any information. Several times complainant approached 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party again asked to produce copy of identity card and passport size photographs. The same was produced by the complainant. On 15/01/07 1st opposite party informed the complainant that they could not activate the connection in the name of the complainant and asked her to submit copy of the identity card and passport size photograph of her husband. Later the connection was transferred in the name of her husband at the request of 1st opposite party.

    2. Opposite parties filed version. 1st opposite party admits the connection provided to the complainant. 1st opposite party submits that on verification of the documents produced by the complainant it was found that the photograph submitted and the photo in the identity card were mismatching and also the signature in the application and photos differ. Hence they disconnected the phone services. Connection was revived later as per the direction of 2nd opposite party.


    3. 2nd opposite party denies all the allegations of the complainant. 2nd opposite party has no knowledge about the transaction between the complainant and 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party is not responsible for the unlawful acts if any done by the 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party received a filled up application dt.22/12/06 and on that basis telephone No.9249350796 was activated in the name of one Gopalan who is the husband of the complainant and the same has been using even now. Complainant has never made any complaints or intimation to 2nd opposite party stating any grievance. According to 2nd opposite party complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.

    4. The evidence adduced consists of the affidavits of all parties along with Ext.A1 marked on the side of complainant and Exts.B1 and B2 marked on the side of opposite parties.

    5. Now the issues for consideration are;

    1.

    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? and
    2.

    If so, what is the relief and cost?

    6. Points 1 & 2:

    The definite case of the complainant is that she was allotted a mobile phone connection and the necessary formalities, viz the production of copy of identity card and passport size photos as requested by 1st opposite party is also complied. The said connection was disconnected by the opposite parties without any information after a period of 10 days. When enquired complainant was asked to produce again copy of identity card and passport size photos. Even on the submission of the same, connection was not activated. Later as per the request of 1st opposite party connection was given in the name of her husband on production of necessary particulars. As per the contention of 1st opposite party application of the said connection was sent through the sub agent of M/s.EVS Enterprises, Court Road,

    Palakkad who deals with prepaid connection of M/s.Tata Tele Services and he has given a temporary receipt and SIM card on the assumption that the documents submitted by the complainant were in order. Later on verification by 2nd opposite party it was found that photo submitted differ from the one in the identity card and also signature in the photograph and application differs. Hence 2nd opposite party disconnected the connection. Later connection was given in the name of the husband of the complainant on her request.

    7. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record. The say of 2nd opposite party that the temporary receipt for connection was issued by another sub agent of 2nd opposite party seems to be unacceptable. Ext.A1 receipt reveals the fact that it was issued by 1st opposite party alone. Further the contention of 1st opposite party that 2nd opposite party disconnected the connection because of the irregularities in the documents submitted by the complainant is also devoid of any merit. Opposite parties ought to have verified the documents before the issuance of the connection. For the fault on the part of the opposite parties complainant cannot be made to suffer. 2nd opposite party is also vicariously liable for the acts of 1st opposite party, being the principal.

    8. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the act of opposite parties amount to deficiency in service on their part.


    9. In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest p.a from the date of order till realisation.

  12. #12

    Default Tata Teleservice

    C.M.Nanu, S/o.C.M.Kannan,

    No.8, Shanmuga Theatre Road,

    Coimbatore 641 002. --- Complainant

    Vs.

    1. M/s.Tata Teleservice Ltd.

    10th floor,Tower 1, Jeevan Bharati,

    124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi

    rep.by its Managing Director.

    2. M/s.Tata Teleservice Ltd.

    No.2,3,4 Thiru Vi Ka Road, Chennai-14

    Rep.by its Manager.

    3. M/s.Tata Teleservice Ltd.

    F1, Eastern Wing, Lakshmi Plaza,

    1089, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore-37

    rep.by its Manager.

    4. M/s.Tata Teleservice Ltd.

    1st floor, Manchester Square,

    12, Puliakulam Road, Coimbatore-27

    rep.by its Manager. --- Opposite Parties.


    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.1,00,000/- towards compensation for illegal threat and mental agony caused to him and to pay cost of the proceedings.

    The case of the complaint are as follows:

    1. The complainant is running a tea stall/mess. He is having Tata Indicom Pedestal Booth bearing connection No.6946036 from 2004 and also a telephone line in his residence with connection No.6459737 from 2007. the complainant is a Tata Teleservices Customer for the past 4 years.The complainant owned a PCO and landline connections from Tata Teleservices Ltd. M/s. Tata Teleservices Ltd. Representatives company came during April 2007, stating that the complainant was generating good business from PCO.

    They further said that he is eligible for a gift (Sony Camera) for the achievement and obtained signatures of the complainant in the address proof an identity proof. Till date they have not given any Sony Camera or any other product as gift. During June 2007 of the representative visit, complainant has received mobile bill bearing No.9244439995 A/c.No.207476025 stating that the bill amount for sum of Rs.553 for usage, which is an absolute false claim. The complainant has given a written leter to 3rd opposite party stating the facts and cheating made by opposite party. The 3rd opposite party has accepted the letter and the original bill from complainant.

    2. The complainant has received a legal notice from M/s.Vijay Associates on 12.1.08 stating to pay Rs.553 on or before 25.2.08 between 10 am and 4.30 p.m. as balance due to Mr.R.Parthipan,Advocate. The complainant has responded to Advocate Mr.R.Parthipan of M/s.Vijai Associates with a reply legal notice sent on 7.2.08 and they have received the same on 13.2.08 and Mr.R.Parthipan on 12.2.08. The complainant has received a notice from Coimbatore Legal Aid stating to pay Rs.553 on 29.2.08 at 10.30a.m. at Legal Aid office. The opposite parties 3 and 4 made several threatening calls on that day to pressurize to pay the balance due amount. The complainant has sent legal notice on 3.3.08 to all four opposite parties and notice was duly served on the opposite parties but four opposite parties has not responded for this notice. Hence this complaint.

    The case of the Opposite parties are as follows:

    3. There was no Sony camera that was offered by the opposite parties. The opposite parties were in receipt of a customer application form bearing No.00101308 dated 9.3.07 in the name of the complainant. The verification team had verified the address and has reported that the handset has been reported to the daughter-in-law of the complainant. The customer approached the opposite parties and brought to the notice of the opposite parties of the fact that he had not availed the 3rd connection. Based on the request of the complainant, the line was immediately suspended.

    4. Due to clerical error, a legal notice and lok adalat summon was issued to the complainant. After intimation by the complainant that the connection was not availed by him, all proceedings were dropped against the complainant. It is vehemently denied that there were any threatening calls to the complainant demanding the dues. The said averments are nothing but an exaggeration of the complainant. The opposite parties have been cheated by some third parties, misusing the complainant’s proofs to the tune of cost of mobile and the usage.

    5. The opposite parties have sincerely tried to settle the matter with the complainant, admitting to the clerical error and apologizing for the same and by further offering the complainant the following 6 months rental free; 2) free usage of Rs.250 for 3 months and instrument replacement as a good will gesture for one of his existing connection. However, the customer though initially accepted the proposal, thereafter refused to accept the same and started demanding astronomical amount for settling the matter. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed with costs.

    6. The complainant and opposite parties have filed Proof Affidavit along with Ex.A1 to A11 was marked and Ex.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.



    The point for consideration is

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

    ISSUE 1

    7. The case of the complainant is that he has not received any mobile or subscribe to any mobile from the opposite parties but the opposite parties are sending bills and legal notice claiming amounts for the so called dues. The opposite parties though denied other allegation but admitted the main allegation in para 10 of his counter. The extract is given below:-


    “The opposite parties have sincerely tried to settle the matter with the complainant, admitting to the clerical error and apologizing for the same and by further offering the complainant the following 6 months rental free; 2) free usage of Rs.250 for 3 months and instrument replacement as a good will gesture for one of his existing connection. However, the customer though initially accepted the proposal, thereafter refused to accept the same and started demanding astronomical amount for settling the matter”.


    8. Moreover Ex.B1 is the Customer Application Form dt.9.3.07 and B2 is the Driving License of the complainant. The photographs affixed in Ex.B1 and B2 are entirely different from each other. The photograph affix in Ex.B1 is not the photograph of the complainant. These documents will prove the case of the complainant. From the above, it is evident that the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service, the complainant suffered mental agony. Hence the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief from this Forum.



    9. In the result we direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,001

    Default Tata Indicom

    Hello Sir,

    My userid is gagan.mehra@vsnl.net. My internet stopped working on 10th of
    may 2009 and we received a letter stating TATA Indicom is longer providing
    broadband connection in delhi. Hence i was informed that either i can get
    the refund of my balance or i can switch over to wireless or dial up
    services. I decided to move to wireless and their technicians came after
    more than 30 days and said that they are unable to setup wireless connection
    here as they are not getting signals. Then i decided to move to dial up and
    put a request on phone as well as on internet but no one turned up to us for
    months. On contacting they said i need to wait. After waiting for months i
    asked them to cancel my services, i send them an email as well i kept
    calling those people, finally after waiting for another few months, i was
    told a technician would come up at my place to collect the modem and my
    money will be refunded which never happened. Initially near to 10th of june
    2009, i had got a cal from the back office team of TATA Indicom stating that
    my account balance is somewhere around Rs.3000/- and i will be refunded this
    amount as the services have been disconnected from their side, and after
    months of waiting for them to provide me any kind of connection, they told
    me that i had a prepaid connection and the moey will not be refunded. And
    now my account balance is reducing on monthly basis and they could not
    provide me any service even after waiting for so many months. Kindly look
    into the matter.

    Regards
    V. Mehra

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,001

    Default Tata Indicom

    consumer case(CC) No. CC/95/2007

    P.P.Rajan
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    2.Regional Manager, Kerala circle office

    1.Managerm M/s,Mascit Communications,Franchise
    ...........Respondent(s)


    BEFORE:


    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




    ORDER

    IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR



    Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President

    Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member

    Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member



    Dated this, the 18th day of December 2009



    CC/95/2007

    P.P.Rajan,

    Aswathy Nivas,

    P.O.Pappinissery, Complainant

    Kannur.



    1.Manger,

    M/s.Mascot Communications,

    Franchise, TATA Indicom,

    Platinum Center, Bank Road, Kannur. Opposite parties

    (Rep. by M.K.Associates)

    2. Regional Manager,

    Kerala Circle Office,

    TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED’

    SL Plaza, Palarivattom,

    Cochin 25.

    (Rep. by Adv.S.K.Krishnakumar)



    O R D E R

    Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

    This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.566/- being the value of the phone set along with Rs.50, 000/- as compensation and cost.

    The case of the complainant is that he had availed a telephone facility during September 2006. Under the Tariff plan “Take India 225” having No.0497.6450575 and at the time of availing connection the 1st opposite party represented and assured that the complainant has to pay only Rs.568/- initially and rent of Rs.125/- for the first 3 months and on remittance of Rs.1300/- along with 3rd month rent of Rs.125/- and the complainant can enjoy life time incoming facility free without payment of any service charges. The complainant has received a bill of Rs.94/- dt.27.10.06 and the opposite party has collected Rs.100/- from the complainant. Surprisingly the complainant received bill dt.27.11.06 for Rs.347/- and Rs.389/- and Rs.593/- dt.27.12.06 and last bill dt.27.2.07 for Rs.1065/- and the opposite party issued bills regularly showing as service charges contrary to the assurance. So the complainant asked the opposite party to take the phone back, but the opposite party again issued bills for the set kept idle. Apart from this the complainant could not make use of the facility since the phone set was defective and the same was informed to the opposite party and are not ready to replace the same. Even though the opposite party provides life time incoming free, the opposite party had issued bill. The lottery customers of the complainant left with no alternative which caused pecuniary loss to the complainant which is his means of livelihood. This was caused due to the deficiency of service of opposite party. The opposite party has done unfair trade practice by falsely representing the scheme as beneficial and this act of opposite party caused so much of loss and hardship to the complainant and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this complaint.

    On receiving the notice from the Forum, both the opposite parties appeared through their counsels. Later on 1st opposite party was called absent and set exparte. 2nd opposite party filed version stating that the complainant has availed wireless telephone connection during September 2006 through1st opposite party and has paid Rs.561/- as activation charge and was activated on 256.9.06 as per the “Talk India Rs.225 plan”. As per this plan the customer have to pay activation charge of Rs.561/- at the time of availing connection and fixed monthly rent of Rs.225/- apart from usage and service charges. After payment of first 3 ills, if the customer opted to pay an amount of Rs.1300/- he was not charged any monthly rent in future. The 1st opposite party supplied a brochure and had explained the terms and conditions of the plan. The telephone charges claimed in the bills issued is the monthly rent, usage charges and service charges. The opposite party had issued a bill for Rs.94/- for the billing period from 25.9.06 to 24.10.06. The complainant had defaulted and for the billing period from 25.10.06 to24.11.065, issued a bill for Rs.347/- and on receipt of this bill the complainant had paid only Rs.100/- For the period from 25.11.06 to 24.12.06 another bill was issued for Rs.593/- and subsequently 25.12.06 to 24.1.076, for Rs.902/- and the billing period from 25.1.07 to24.2.07 for Rs.1065/-. But the complainant has not paid the bill and as a result the connection was disconnected. The amount claimed in the last four bills is inclusive of the arrears under the earlier bills. After availing the connection, the complainant had never reported any defects of the telephone equipment. So there is no deficient service on the part of the opposite parties.

    The complainant is not a consumer, since he had availed the service of the opposite party for commercial purposes and hence the forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

    1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

    2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

    3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

    4. Relief and cost.

    The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3.

    Issue No.1

    The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer since he had availed the service of opposite party for commercial purpose. But the explanation to claue (d) of section 2of the act says that for the purpose of this clause commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The complaint in this case contended that he has purchased the phone for his lottery customers to contact him which is his livelihood. So we hold the view that the complainant has purchased the phone for promoting his lottery business which is his means of livelihood and hence he is a consumer and the Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case.

    The opposite party admits that the complaint had availed a wireless telephone connection of the 2nd opposite party assigning subscriber number 0497 6450575 under the Talk India 225 plan. The complainant has produced Ext.A1, the receipt by which he has paid Rs.100/- and A2 and A3 are the bills. The Ext.B1 is the Walky Postpaid Plans brochure. The complainant’s case is that he has to pay Rs.568/- initially and rent of Rs.125/- for first three months and on remittance of Rs.1300/- along with 3rd months rent, he can enjoy life time incoming facility free without payment of service charge. But the opposite party contended that the complainant has to pay Rs.561/- as activation charge and fixed monthly rent of Rs.225/- apart from usage and service charges and after payment of the first 3 bills if the customer opted to payRs.1300/- he was not to be charged any monthly rent in future. In order to substantiate this contention he has produced Ext.B1 brochure and he further adds that no such plan as stated by the complainant has introduced by the opposite party. Complainant has not produced any documents to show that he has availed connection as contended by him. More over the complainant admitted that he has paid only Rs.100/- to the opposite party except the initial payment. For this he reasoned that his phone became defective soon after its purchase and the opposite party had issued bills for the phone not used at all. But no evidence is before us to show that the phone is defective and not produced the equipment also. So this contention of the complainant cannot be given much consideration. So there is no evidence before us to show that the service of the opposite party is deficient or he has done unfair trade practice. So the complainant miserably failed to substantiate his case and hence we are of the opinion that deficiency of service or unfair trade practice of opposite party was not proved by the complainant and hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,001

    Default TATA Indicam

    C.C. Nos. 384/2008

    THURSDAY, THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER 2010
    N. Sekar,

    # 7, Flat # 20, Anand Apartments,

    9th Street Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

    Mylapore, Chennai-4. … Complainant



    Vs



    Manager,

    TATA Indicam,

    Tata Teleservices,

    ParasTowers,

    # 2,3 & 4 Thiru.Vi.Ka.Salai,

    Chennai – 14. … Opposite Party



    Date of complaint : 13.10.2008

    For Complainant : Mr.S. Natarajan, Counsel.

    For Opposite Party : Exparte



    ORDER

    THIRU.P. ROSIAH, PRESIDENT



    1. This complainant has been filed by the complaint, Complaint under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Tata Tele services claiming refund of Rs.1200/- being the costs paid to the telephone mobile and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in-services and costs.

    1. The main averments of the complainant are briefly as follows:

    The complainant is a subscriber of Telephone and mobile phone of the opposite parties and was promos in payment of telephone mobile bills. As the opposite party demanded excess payment of the bills, the complainant has asked for refund of instrument costs of Rs.1200/- after disconnection of the telephone connection. But, there was no reply from the opposite party. The telephones were disconnected by the opposite party without notice to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

    2. The opposite parties though received notice, did hot appear before this Forum. Hence, he was set exparte.

    3, The complainant has field proof affidavit and ExhibitsA1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant.

    4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

    1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

    the opposite parties?.

    2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

    5. Point No.1: Though the opposite party was set exparte the complainant has field proof affidavit. This case has been filed alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Tata Indicam teleservices. The case is with regard to the Telephone service connection.



    2 In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2009 C.T.J.1062 (Supreme Court) (CP) in the case of the General Manager – Vs – M. Krishnanan and another, the complaint agaisant the Telecom service is not maintainable before this Forum. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case has held that the Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints relatable to telecom disputes.” The Apex Court further held as follows: “ IN our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred” . But the counsel for the complainants would submit that the decision of the Apex Court stated supra is not applicable to all the cases involving telecom disputes. This issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and by order dated 30.11.2009 in F.A.No.460 of 2004 etc., The Hon’ble State Commission held that “in view of section 7-B of the Telegraphic Act the jurisdiction of this Forum is ousted whether it is implied or otherwise as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Chennai in the case of The General Manager, Chennai Telephones, Chennai and two others – Vs – Meenakshi Annie, (Advocate ) in F.A. No.460 of 2004 dated 30.11.2009 has held as follows: “ The cases filed by the complainants, against the Telecommunication Services, whether it is BSNL or against others are all not maintainable, before Consumer Fora and the parties have to seek their remedies under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, before the Arbitrator who is to be appointed, by the Central Government. In this view, all the appeals filed by the opposite parties Telecommunication Service, have to be allowed and the appeals filed by the complainants, those who have lost before the District Fora, have to be dismissed, as complaints are not maintainable. “

    3. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2009 C.T.J. (S.C.) (C.P) Page 1062kl and the decision of the Hon’ble Tamil Naud State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission made in F.A. 460 of 2004 etc., dated 30.11.2009 are squarely applicable to the cases on hand. Following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the Consumer For a has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints relatable to telecom disputes.

    4. Point No.2: In fine, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

    Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of December 2009.

+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-03-2012, 09:45 PM
  2. Tata indicom
    By vm.kaushik in forum Mobile Services
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-13-2009, 12:20 AM
  3. TATA indicom
    By Sidhant in forum Mobile
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-10-2009, 11:42 PM
  4. Tata indicom
    By Unregistered in forum Mobile Billing Problem
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-07-2009, 11:52 AM
  5. tata indicom
    By adesh kumar in forum Mobile
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-14-2009, 08:09 PM

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
  •