BENGALURU: Holding Reliance Communications Limited (RCL) responsible for unfair trade practice, the Third Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the company to pay Rs 25,000 compensation to a consumer.
Partly allowing the complaint filed by complainant R Hema, the Commission comprising president K Shivarama and member KS Raju directed RCL to pay her Rs 25,000, including Rs 10,000 towards damages, Rs 5,000 towards mental agony and hardship, and Rs 10,000 as litigation cost. Hema is a resident of Rajajinagar in Bengaluru.
The Commission noted that the complainant contended that though there was no actual usage of internet for more than a year and a half, a bill dated November 11, 2015, was issued with an ulterior motive to make illegal money. The complainant also submitted a legal notice dated December 1, 2015, calling upon RCL to refund the security deposit, and the company assured it would be refunded, but did not do so. Hence, RCL’s act amounts to breach of trust. “We feel the non-refund of security deposit amounts to deficiency of service on the part of RCL,” the Commission said.
Hema had subscribed for an RCL broadband connection in October 2013, and was using it till April 2014, till the date of its disconnection, and paid the due amount. In April 2014, an RCL executive informed her that disconnection was done due to non-availability of distribution point in the area. When she called customer care, she was informed that alternative arrangements would be made immediately.
To the complainant’s surprise, she received a bill for Rs 616 in May 2014 for usage charges, though there was no broadband connection. In view of a promise made that it would be adjusted in future bills on restoration of the connection, she paid that bill too. But the connection was never restored, and when she requested RCL for her security deposit, the company failed to refund the amount.
On November 11, 2015, RCL sent a broadband bill for Rs 12,351, prompting the complainant to move the Commission. Apart from denying allegations, RCL also contended that the Commission has no jurisdiction, which the Commission rejected, and ordered RCL to pay compensation.