SAMIR DUBE vs R.P.G. CELCOM LIMITED

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 4.5.2002 in Complaint No. 93/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the ''Distt. Forum'' for short), dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

AS per averments in the complaint, the complainant/appellant had obtained mobile connection from the respondent. The complainant has averred that the services of the respondent were not satisfactory and there were practical problems in getting in touch with the parties called. It was further averred that despite complaints made by the complainant to the respondent regarding difficulties faced by him as above, no improvement was made in their services by the respondent. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- besides the refund of the amount deposited by him with the respondent of obtaining the mobile connection. The complaint was resisted by the respondent. According to them, the mobile phone services were available without any interruption and the difficulties as pointed out by the complainant could be for various reasons and not due to deficiency of service on the part of the respondent.

The Distt. Forum held that the complainant has not specified the practical difficulties in the complaint and has not substantiated the grievances raised by him. Accordingly the complaint was dismissed.

WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record. We find that no specific instances of difficulties have been specified in the complaint and general averments regarding the defective services have been made. It has been stated in the complaint that on dialing a particular number, the message on the screen comes which reads "Call ended or call rejected" and that the dialled number could be contacted only after repeated redialling. The other grievance as specified in para 7 of the complaint is that there is a signal message in the set which reads "RPG Cellular phone you are trying to reach is currently unavailable, please call back after some time". It was averred that the complaints given in writing to the respondent were not duly attended to. However, it is not clear as to whether the difficulties as alleged above faced by the complaint were on account of any deficiency in service by the respondent. No expert opinion as to why such difficulty arose and as to whether the respondent is responsible for the same has been placed on record.

IN view of the above, it is clear that the complainant failed to establish and substantiate the allegations made in the complaint. The District Forum was justified in holding so. However, before parting with the order we may observe that as the respondent is providing public utility services, it should render services to the satisfaction of the customers and rectify the difficulties and complaints should be duly responded and then should be satisfied by explaining the reasons for the cause of complaint. However, the impugned order dismissing the complaint does not call for any interference. The appeal being without substance is dismissed. Parties shall however bear their own costs of this appeal as incurred. Appeal dismissed.