hovs

Thank you Chirag. I was expecting this kind of moral support more than anything else. I reproduce some more correspondence. The shocking reply is I request all of you to examine the way the R-Connect bill has been issued where the tariff is fortunately uncomplicated and still they have charged me more for lesser calls and less for higher calls. Assuming the scenario that all the R-connect charges pertain to calls after the lapse of first 400 minutes, the maximum bill can be only 121.40 (311 * 0.40) whereas they are bluntly stating that i have been perfectly charged. I don't mind spending money - even if it is more than the disputed bill itself - but what is the outcome assuming that I win. And what is the cost paid by me in terms of the mental agony and the valuable time lost in litigation. Their reply which I have posted last is very clearly covered under "misrepresentation" in the Indian Contract Act. I am very sure of winning and in all likelihood I will.

AS per the printed brochure of the company, this is the PON1 Tariff Offer. Hope this suffices your requirement.

I will be certainly interested. Great that you want to do something "FREE".

Precisely. That is what I understand from it. And the more crucial point -if the TRAI press relaease is to be beleived - is that Reliance have wilfully misled the customers stating some offer knowing fully well that they have not even applied for it before the TRAI. You can also see from their scond reply that they simply say "Reliance has offered 15 second pulse Rate" at one point and in the following lines they simply say that the promise made by the sales repe is not valid as if to make you feel that the sales personnel have mislead you and not the company. I have the publicity material with me which clearly states the 15 second pulse rate. Does it not show how untrustworthy they are? I have another email in end of April 2003 for my query in the beginning of that month showing certain tariffs pertaining to inter-connect charges which has been flouted yet again. Finally, I am still ignorant of the authority they have and the condition which gives them such authority to force me make calls for 400 minutes and pay what ever charges become leviable including those which are totally false like those relating the charges shown for incoming calls recd outside home location. I have never moved the handset beyond a 100m radius from their tower in Hyderabad and still they simply state that I have gone to an area outside my SDCA. Assuming that I have indeed gone, did the company send any communication atleast an sms on the mobile that incoming calls are chargeable.

Thank you for the reply Niket. I was hurt that . The matter is over a sum which is much less than the heartburn I am enduring to see that a company as big as Reliance (I had the highest regard to late Sri Dhirubai) because they have made name for the country maybe by twisting a couple of laws here and there and perhaps some political manipulations. All successful companies should be doing it now. I will never complain against somebody as long as the deal is transparent. Don't we pay several times more than the cost of pizza or burger when we eat at a good restaurant.I am reproducing the mail below I do not know how to display the excell worksheet they have sent along with the above reply, but if you beleive me it clearly states that local calls to all types of phones and intra-circle calls for RIM and other landline phones cost me zero. I will quote another sample of their reply You can also see that they have themselves said that the IUC regime is wef 1.5.3. I hope you are convinced about why I feel so desperate. Like everybody, I feel disgusted when you are cheated. Cheating happens almost every moment from the tampered auto meters to hiked porter charges to exhorbitant greed of petty vendors. I have learnt to live with them as most of them are struggling hard to meet their both ends meet. But it cannot happen with a company like Reliance. I have pondered over your advice in the very beginning of this messy episode. But I don't have the resources to fight someone like reliance. I am sure that I cannot win against them given their clout. I do not know about your state, but in Hyderabad and AP there have been several media reports where respectable people have aired their grievances. If you are wondering as to why I am putting in so many efforts when I say that I cannot fight them, the reason is very simple. They might have duped me by a couple of thousands and that is the maximum that they can do. But I have inflicted a much greater damage on them by canvassing against the company by making people who come into contact with me and educating them into taking a wise decision. I also know that they can absorb this loss with ease. But for the crime they are committing no court would give them a bigger punishment. My pain probably reflects the cost of justice and the poor state of consumer activism in our country.

I am sorry Niket that you just concluded something without knowing the facts. If you have read my first post completely, you would not have said. For the purpose of clarification, I want you to know that I took the connection on March 3rd evening. I wrote them an email on the following day asking if the calls were indeed free as there was no written communication - atleast to my knowledge. They have replied that the calls are absolutely free sometime during the end of march. I can send / forward you the correspondence if you still disbeleive. I can also forward you the press release of TRAI which to my understanding means that the regime is effective from 1st May 2003. So I am not sure as to why they have now collected Offnet charges or whatever other heading. I am sure that the company has misrepresented facts - obviously willfully - when it has concealed the fact that they have not even filed the tariff plan before TRAI as on the date of their making the offer and precisely the date on which they have given me the application. Again I produce the following quote Are you sure that a company as wise as reliance will offer a discount without having committed some thing wrong. I am also in possession of a communication from Reliance (to another corporate customer) acknowledgeing that they have made a mistake in billing in respect of certain calls I am a govt servant myself and I do interpret much more complex laws. I am still unsure as to how they can force me to make me commit for higher usage charges just to get back the money already paid to them and I am searching the small fine print if there is something to that effect. I would be glad to know if someone can show me the precise term or condition where the customer agrees to pay more than the agreed 600 rs per month for calls not exceeding 400 minutes per month.

As seen in one of the earlier replies the press release by reliance is only a piece of information on the reported international practice. I swear that I have been billed for calls made from the RIM (at Residence) to my GSM mobile. If things go as per standards, what was the need for them to make the DAPO offer before filing the same with the TRAI and without obtaining prior approval and before making prior inter-connect arrangements. I am also in possession of information about an employee (looking after despatch in a factory) got a bill for calls he made to the mobile phones of the transport agencies apart from so many other friends making a similar complaint on this matter. None of us are so foolish to say that they have billed for calls made

I would be ever grateful to you if you can find a willing scapegoat in my place for this silly issue of a couple of thousands that seems to have made me partially insane

In addition all the promises of "CALL NATIONAL PAY LOCAL" and "15 second pulse rate" have gone with the wind. It appears from the TRAI's Press release that the operators started filing their plans from March 10th 2003 whereas they have mislead the gullible customers into the trap by making all those tall and false claims. In terms of the Indian Contract Act, it appears that this is a clear case of "mis-representation" and "fraud".