RUPALI BANSALN Vs. RELIANCE INFOCOM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THERE is no need to issue notice to the respondent as the impugned order has been assailed on the factual matrix.

(2.) THE instant complaint seeking restoration of the connection and compensation for disconnecting telephone connection was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16. 7. 2008, with the observation that it is not expected that the service provider will continue to provide service even when the appellant herself has not fulfilled her duty to pay the charges for the services already availed. , and therefore, the respondent was not deficient in service. However, at the same time, the District Forum observed that opportunity was given to AR of the appellant to show if any security deposit was made with the respondent but security deposit receipt could not be produced on behalf of the appellant. It is common knowledge that such a connection is always provided subject to deposit of security amount.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY mobile connection of the appellant was disconnected by the respondent for non-payment of the bill for the month of July, 2006 for Rs. 504, in spite of there being an amount of Rs. 1,800 lying with the respondent by way of deposit. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.