The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Chennai News : Consumer forum rules against mobile operator

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jul 05, 2006

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Consumer forum rules against mobile operator

K.T. Sangameswaran

Orders Reliance to compensate for lapses

CHENNAI: A city district consumer forum has directed Reliance India Mobile, a division of Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai to pay Rs.7000 to a complainant for causing mental agony by sending bills to him without even supplying a mobile handset.

It ordered that the company return the Rs. 501, which he paid while booking the phone connection, with nine per cent interest, and pay him Rs.1000 as costs. It directed that the monthly bills already sent should be withdrawn.

Assurance not kept

Vijay Bhandari of Davidson Street near Broadway complained to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) that he booked a mobile phone connection from the company through an agent, asking for particular brand of handset. The company's agent promised him to supply the handset after getting it from the company. The assurance was not kept even after several months. Despite this, the complainant said, he was being billed regularly. His representations and a legal notice did not help. Besides the company, he cited the agent as the defendant.

The company said it was not liable for assurance given by the agent on supplying a specific brand of handset to the complainant. The monthly statement sent was as per the usage of the mobile phone; the company submitted that it was not at fault.

Agent `not aware'

The agent submitted that only at the time of distribution of handsets to the applicants did he came to know that the complainant wanted a particular brand. The company sent the monthly bills, he said, adding that the representation made by the complainant was sent to Reliance with a request that they attend to it.

He informed the complainant that he could collect Rs. 500 he paid when booking the connection. In their order, Forum President G. Frederick Kanagaraj and Member (in charge), V. Narasingamoorthy, said it had been proved that the complainant was not supplied a handset. It had also been that the agent had taken steps to safeguard the complainant's interest.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu