PRADYUMNA KUMAR MISRA Vs. RELIANCE TELECOM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the appellant. He filed this appeal challenging the validity of the order dated 17.8.2004 made by Cuttack District Forum in C.D. Case No. 274 of 2003 dismissing his complaint.

(2.) The appellant filed the complaint claiming compensation and cost of litigation alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. His case is that he is a consumer of Reliance Telecom Limited. He purchased a smart card worth Rupees 200 and recharged it in his mobile phone on 14.10.2003. The card was valid for thirty days. He was, therefore, entitled to use it for thirty days commencing from 14.10.2003. To his surprise, he found that on 3.11.2003 neither his mobile phone received any incoming call nor could he dial outgoing call. On inquiry from the respondents, he was informed that the validity of the period of the smart card was reduced from thirty to twenty days which expired on 2.11.2003 i.e., after expiry of twenty days from the date of recharge. The contention of the appellant is that when it was mentioned in the smart card that it was valid for thirty days, the respondents could not have unilaterally reduced the period to twenty days.

(3.) The appellant filed the rejoinder disputing the averments made by the respondents in their written version. He stated in the rejoinder that he had not signed any subscriber enrolment form and, therefore, the terms and conditions contained therein were not binding on him. In the rejoinder, he further stated that this Commission in C.D. Case No. 16 of 2002 filed by one Rakesh Lal directed by order dated 24.6.2002 that the terms and conditions of smart service application form shall not be given effect to until further orders. According to the appellant, in view of the prohibitory order of this Commission, the respondents could not have unilaterally reduced the validity period from thirty to twenty days which amounts to violation of the order of this Commission.