Pran Nath Bhatia vs EVERGROWTH TELECOM LTD.

IT is an appeal against the order dated 12.1.2001 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the "District Forum").

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the appellant-complainant (hereinafter called the "complainant" was a Councillor and the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter called the "opposite parties") had provided Cell Phone Nos. 98150-21405 and 98150-26900 to him. He had made payment of Rs. 4,348/- on 19.2.1998 and another sum of Rs. 4,348/- on 4.3.1998. Payments were made to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 through respondent No. 3, viz., M/s. Sun Mobile, Ludhiana (opposite party No. 3 before the District Forum). It was alleged in the complaint that in spite of the assurance to give all facilities with DOT, no facilities had been provided to Cell Phones of the complainant, as such, the instruments were lying as surplus instruments and he was not getting any benefits. He had suffered a loss of business due to the said deficiency. The opposite parties had unnecessarily grabbed the amount from him. He was entitled to refund of Rs. 8,696/- paid by him to the opposite parties, to recover Rs. 20,000/- spent by him for the purchase of handsets, to recover Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,500/- as costs. It was further prayed that the opposite parties be directed to make the payment of the abovesaid amounts along with interest @ 18% per annum to the complainant. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 before the District Forum in their reply took preliminary objections that the complainant was barred under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint was vague, false and frivolous. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were dealing only in providing mobile phone services and were not dealing in the sale of mobile instruments. However, on the request of the subscribers, assistance to the subscribers for the purchase of hand sets is provided. Subscribers were free to buy the instruments from elsewhere also. Services in Ludhiana were started on trial basis in February, 1998. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 before the District Forum never committed to provide mobile services in September as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were providing free mobile to mobile services to its subscribes. The DOT connectivity was withdrawn due to some issue with the DOT and, as such, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. It was then submitted that the complainant had deposited the amount and Cell Phones were provided to him. It was denied that the complainant was a Councillor of Ludhiana Municipal Corporation. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, in view of the detailed facts, had alleged that there was no deficiency in service on their part and as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the District Forum partially allowed the complaint and made the following directions: "Accordingly the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 8,696/- to the complainant which was deposited by the complainant on the return of the Sim Cards by the complainant which were supplied to the complainant by the opposite party. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 500/- as costs. Amount shall be refunded by the opposite party as and when the Sim Cards are returned to the opposite party. Copies of the order be sent to the parties."

Hence this appeal by the complainant.

WE do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. It is admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs. 4,348/- each for getting two connections of Cell Phones. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 before the District Forum in their reply stated that the services in Ludhiana were started on trial basis in February, 1998 and since then they were providing free mobile to mobile services to their subscribers. However, the DOT connectivity was withdrawn due to some issue with the DOT; as such, the opposite parties were not in a position to provide the cell phone services excepting mobile to mobile services which were being provided free of cost. It is also discernible from the record that the complainant had not placed on the file any letter written to the opposite party asking for refund of the amount deposited. The District Forum has rightly held that when the connectivity had been withdrawn, the complainant was only entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him. This appeal is, thus, dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.