: O R D E R :

MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 27.6.08 passed by the Calcutta District Forum, Unit-I in CDF/Case No. 271/2006 wherein the Ld. District Forum directed restoration of cellular phone in favour of the complainant with new number 9836134345 free of cost and also directed the OP to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1000/-.

The complainant/Respondent’s case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the OP/Appellant provided service connection to the complainant on 12.6.06 free of cost on monthly rental basis. The OP without notice disconnected the service on 16.6.06 without assigning any reason whatsoever. The OP drew bill dt. 6.7.06 in the name of the petitioner for the period from 6.6.06 to 5.7.06 after providing connection and the complainant also paid that bill. As the OP did not respond by reconnecting the connection, the complainant after serving notice upon the OP instituted the petition of complaint for redressal.

The OP contested the case by filing written objection thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the mobile connection was provided to the complainant due to mistake as the allotted number in respect of that mobile connection free of cost was only meant for special purpose.

However, the fact was duly intimated to the complainant and though the OP provided another number for use by the complainant free of cost, for reasons best known to the complainant the complainant did not accept it, for which the OP is not responsible. There was no deficiency of service at the instance of the OP and hence, the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed with cost.

The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that it is an admitted position that the complainant was provided with service connection free of cost, but the OP without assigning any reason unilaterally disconnected the connection which has tantamounted to deficiency in service and accordingly disposed of the petition of complaint in the manner mentioned above.

The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.

DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant/OP that in this case though the OP has come with clean hands, i.e. it placed all the cards before the Ld. District Forum, but for reasons best known to the District Forum the verdict was unnecessarily harsh and one –sided. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, the impugned judgement does not reflect the actual state of affairs. When the OP clearly mentioned that the service connection was allotted in favour of the complainant out of mistake and subsequently after rectifying the mistake the OP was all along ready and willing to provide another new connection free of cost, there was no point on the part of the Ld. District Forum to form an adverse view thereby holding that there was deficiency in service at the instance of the OP is not at all tenable under the law. While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has urged before us that the proposal on the part of the Appellant/OP for providing new connection in favour of the complainant/Respondent still persists and the impugned judgement being not in accordance with law and contrary to the actual state of affairs should be set aside the Appeal be allowed.


We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in this case it is the specific case of the complainant that though the complainant was allotted a mobile connection free of cost on rental basis and the OP having raised and accepted the bill charged for couple of days, there was no point on the part of the OP to disconnect the connection unilaterally and the complainant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such arbitrary action on the part of the OP has prayed for redressal before the Ld. District Forum. The OP, on the other hand, has tried to put up a story to the effect that the mobile connection free of cost was given with a particular mobile number to the complainant by mistake and the said mobile number was only meant for special purpose and not for the general category including that of the complainant. However, subsequently the OP has renewed its offer by providing another new mobile number, but the complainant has not accepted the same for reasons best known to the complainant for which the OP should not be held responsible and that there was no merit in the petition of complaint.

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellant and on perusal of the materials on record and the impugned judgement we find that the Ld. District Forum has properly appreciated the respective parties’ cases and has rightly designated the OP to be on the wrong side of the case and has disposed of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant by directing the OP to provide the new connection in favour of the complainant. However, in this connection, we are of considered opinion that the compensation amount of Rs. 3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- should be reduced to Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively. In the result, the Appeal succeeds in part on contest but without any order as to cost. The compensation amount and litigation cost be reduced to the amounts mentioned above.

Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed ex parte in part without any order as to cost. The impugned order of the Ld. Forum below is modified to the extent that the litigation cost and compensation amount be reduced to Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) respectively. The other portion of the impugned judgement stands unaltered. OP is directed to comply with this order within 30(thirty) days from the date of communication of this judgement, failing which penalty @ 50/- (Rupees fifty only) per day shall be imposed for the period of default.

MEMBER MEMBER