LAVIT JAIN Vs. RELIANCE INDIA MOBILE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal the appellant (complainant) challenges the propriety and legality of the order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the District Forum, Bhopal in case No. 240/04 by which the case of the appellant has been dismissed by the District Forum.

(2.) IN his complaint before the District Forum, the appellant stated that he was engaged along with his partner in the construction work when an offer was made by the agent of the respondent -company that if he purchases one cordless phone and two handsets, the talks between the two handsets would be free of cost. Accordingly the appellant deposited Rs. 2,000, + Rs. 501 x 3=Rs. 3,503 and thus the cordless phone and handsets were delivered to him. It was also mentioned that the telephone numbers would be governed by the Plan 501 containing various tariffs and that the calls between the handsets and FWP (Fixed Wire Phones) would be free of costs. But the respondent even billed the appellant for these calls which he realized when he obtained a duplicate bill from Viththal Market. The complainant gave this information to the agent. The agent, in the beginning, was evasive but he gave information about another scheme of the company on payment of Rs. 50 per month. The agent got some forms filled up but later the complainant realized that he has been befooled by the agent. That the other facilities promised such as Web world and other services continued merely for a period of 8 days and these services were also discontinued. The complainant had obtained the said facility so that he could talk with his partner, but the facility discontinued, thus causing mental agony and economic loss. In these premises, the complainant alleged that the respondent is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The appellant, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 1,30,000, in addition to Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and physical harassment.

(3.) THE respondents filed their return. It was stated by the respondent that the appellant booked three connections under Wireless in Local Loop (WLL) on 26.8.2003 and 27.8.2003 bearing telephone numbers 0755 -3112030, 3112055 arid 3112184. For these connections the appellant opted for budget 149 plan and a specific option in the plan as chosen by the appellant was 501 wherein monthly charges were Rs. 449. Under this plan, the SMS charges prescribed were 50 paise per SMS. The appellant, besides these two connections, booked three more connections under Fixed Wire Phone (FWP) on 26.8.2003 and 6.9.2003 bearing numbers 0755 - 3090478, 3090479 and 3090312. The appellant for FWP connections opted two different types of plan viz., FWP Plan 02 and Plan 03. Under FWP Plan 02 the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 1800 including Rs. l00 as security deposit against the handset provided by the respondent -company and Rs. 800 for activation and installation charges. Under FWP -03 the appellant chose this plan wherein plan charges were Rs. 1,000 and call charges for Re. 1 per call. It was not disputed that the appellant was not a customer of "Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer Offer" Scheme. The 7th telephone line bearing No. 311986 had not been provided by the respondent. It was also pointed out that a bill in the sum of Rs. 61,878, was outstanding which the appellant had not cleared.