State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027





S.C. CASE NO.: FA/2009/73 DATE: 21.07.2009



DATE OF FILING: -16.02.2009



APPELLANT : Sri. Hirak Sinha,

S/o Late Nirmal Kumar Sinha,

745, R.N. Tagore Road, P.S.-Dum Dum,

Kolkata-700 077.



RESPONDENTS : 1. TATA Tele Services Limited,

Jeevan Bharati, Tower-1, 10th Floor,

174, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001

& Cluster Office- Videsh Sanchar Bhavan,

P.S.-Ultadanga, Kolkata-700 054.



2. Somprakash Akhilesh Kumar,

(H.U.F), EE-8, Salt Lake, Sector-II,

Kolkata-700 091, Dist-24-Parganas (N).





BEFORE: HON’BLE JUSTICE : Sri. Aloke Chakrabarti, PRESIDENT.

MEMBER : Smt. Silpi Majumder.



FOR THE APPELLANT : Sri. Amitava Roy, Advocate.

FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Sri. Barun Prosad, Advocate.





-ORDER-



S. Majumder, Member.



Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Ld. District Forum, 24-Parganas (N), Barasat, on 14.01.2009, in its case no-11/2007, the Appellant-Complainant has filed this appeal before this Commission praying for enhancement of the compensation amount due to prolonged unnecessary harassment, mental torture and wastage of valuable time caused by the OPs. After hearing the complaint the Forum below has allowed the complaint in part on contest against the OP-1 and exparte against the OP-2 and directed the OP-1 to pay a sum of Rs.561/- by way of refund as paid by the Complainant, Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost to the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment by the OP-1, failing which the Complainant would be at liberty to get the order in accordance with law.



Before the Forum below the facts of the case of the Complainant were that the OPs approached to him over telephone for providing walky telephone against payment of Rs.561/- under tariff plan H.2 m-180. Though initially the Complainant did not agree, in view of repeated requests made by the OPs the Complainant ultimately consented for taking the same. On 07.12.2006 the personel of the OP-1 received a sum of Rs.561/- in cash from the Complainant and the Complainant handed over original telephone bill for the month of October and November, 2006 issued by BSNL in his own and xerox copy of the Voter indentity card to the said person who obtained a signature of the Complainant on an application for providing Tata Trade form. Though the said personel of the OP-1 assured the Complainant that walky phone would be provided within three days, on 09.12.2006 the Complainant was informed by the OPs that they were unable to provide the walky phone due to some technical problem. Several conversations were held and he was told by the OPs during discussion that he would be required to pay further an amount of Rs.561/- for having the walky set. He was further told that as his residence is situated in a low profile zone, further payment is necessary. But the Complainant being not satisfied filed the complaint before the Forum below praying for direction upon the OPs to refund him the amount of Rs.561/- as paid by him and Rs.9,90,000/- towards compensation due to harassment and mental agony.



During argument before this Commission we have noticed that the Appellant-Complainant has only prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount in the instant appeal. The Appellant has submitted that being an Advocate he had to face serious problems due to want of the walky telephone set and he was harassed by the OPs for a long period inspite of payment of Rs.561/- as per requirement of the OPs and he had also handed over the requisite documents to the OPs as prayed for, but inspite of compliance of all formalities as directed by the OPs the walky set was not provided to him and therefore it is also an example of unfair trade practice. It is seen by us that the Appellant-Complainant had claimed Rs.5,00,000/- for unnecessary harassment and a sum of Rs.2,000,00/- for mental torture and Rs.2,99,000/- due to wastage of his valuable time (para-15 of the complaint), but he has failed to establish the quantification of his loss and harassment by adducing cogent document in support of his contention. It is an admitted fact that the Appellant-Complainant paid a sum of Rs.561/- to the OPs for getting the walky telephone set. But the allegation of the Appellant is that inspite of taking requisite amount from the Appellant; the OPs-Respondent has failed to provide him the said set. Such inaction on the part of the OPs is undoubetedly an example of deficiency in service and for this reason the Ld. Forum below after hearing the complaint has awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost in favour of the Complainant-Appellant and the Forum below has also directed the OP-1 to refund the amount of Rs.561/- to the Complainant as paid by him. In our opinion the Ld. Forum has passed a well-reasoned judgment in which we are not inclined to interfere as the Appellant has failed to produce any evidence regarding enhancement of the compensation amount.



Hence it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed on contest without any cost and the judgment passed by the Ld. Forum below be affirmed, as it does not suffer from any material irregularity. The office is directed to send down the copy of this judgment to the Ld. Forum below and issue the same upon the recorded Advocates/Parties free of cost forthwith.



(S.Majumder) (Justice. A.Chakrabarti)

MEMBER PRESIDENT

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM U/C.P.ACT, 1986 AT NIZAMABAD.

Quorum : Sri P.Raghavender, B.Sc., LL.B., ….PRESIDENT

Sri.Y. Krishna, M.Com., …. MEMBER.

Smt K. Vinayakumari,M.A., LL.B., …MEMBER.

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2009

Date of filing of complaint : 11-02-2008

Date of Order : 26-03-2009

C.C. NO. 12 OF 2008

Between :-

Pavan Kumar Panday S/o Sri Ghan Shyamdas pandey, age about 29 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.7-1-471, Godown Road, Ramgopal Street, Nizamabad.

Complainant

AND

1)TATA Tele Services Ltd., Circle Ofice: 5-9-62, Khan Lateef Khan Building, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad – 500 001, represented through its person-in-charge.
2)Tata Indicom (Tata Tele Services), Nizamabad outlet, near Vijay Talkies, Nizamabad, represented through its person-in-charge.

Opposite Parties

This Consumer Complaint Case coming on 18-03-2009 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri A.Kumardas, Advocate for the complainant and Sri C.Niranjan Rao & Sri Rajkumar Subedar, Advocates, for Opposite Parties and upon hearing the arguments of both side advocates and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following :

:: O R D E R ::

(ORAL ORDER Smt.K.VINAYA KUMARI, MEMBER)

1. The complainant a businessman and resident of Nizamabad district having been attracted by the combi-offer scheme of the opposite party obtained connection from opposite party No.2 by paying required amount of Rs.1,999/- as consideration. As per combi-offer 124 plan scheme, the calls made between mobile and walky are free and calls made from Tata to Tata within A.P. are free of cost with Rs.75/- as additional payment. There is also provision of talk time worth of Rs.150/- free.
The complainant was allotted mobile number 9246910963 and walky No.646763 by the opposite party and both connections stated functioning from 17-09-2007 onwards.
To the dismay of the complainant the opposite party all of sudden stopped the outgoing call facility in the last week of September 2007 to both connections causing great inconvenience and hardship to the complainant. The oral representation of the complainant in the office of opposite party No.2 and also to the customer care did not yield any result.
In the meantime the complainant was served with bill dated 11-10-2007 for Rs.707/- and the complainant was shocked to observe that contrary to the narration of the scheme under combi-offer 124 the calls made from Tata to Tata were also charged. The written representation of the complainant to the Opposite Party to immediately restore the barred out going call facility and also to provide free of charge call facility from Tata to Tata as under combi-offer 124 plan did not yield any result instead was served with another bill dated 11-01-2008 for Rs.2,089/-.

The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party in changing the tariff plan without consent of the customer, disconnection of mobile and walky without notice or intimation and also failure to issue the bills afresh by correcting their records under combi-offer 124 even after written representation and therefore prayed to 1) restore the connection bearing mobile No.9246910963 and walky No..646763 under combi-offer 124 plan, 2) to issue revised bills dated 11-10-2007 and 11-01-2008 afresh under combi-offer 124 plan and further to waive all the chargers to pay till the restoration is made, Rs.25,000/- as compensation along with costs of the complaint.

2. The Opposite Party No.2 remained ex-party.

The Opposite Party No.1 filed counter admitting allotting No.9246910963 and other walky fixed wireless connection vide No.08462 646763 under combo-offer 124 but denied all the other allegations of the complainant materially contending that the complainant after opting the required scheme signed the application form and has opted for Tata to Tata free for walky connection only and not for mobile connection. The bills issued to the complainant clearly go to show the scheme opted by complainant. The complainant in order to evade payment of outstanding amount filed a false complainant and therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint as there is no deficiency in service on their part to the complainant.

3. During the enquiry, both parties lead their evidence by filing their affidavits. Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents are marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents filed on behalf of Opposite Party.

4. Heard arguments of both side Advocates.


5. The points for consideration are:
1)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party to the complainant ?

2)Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs prayed for ?

6. POINT No.1 :- It is admitted by both parties that the complainant took two connections one mobile vide No.9246910963 and one fixed landline vide No.646763 under the combo-offer 124 from Opposite Party.

The point of dispute is the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties in changing the tariff plan from combo-offer 124 to plan 125 without his consent and issuing bills under plan 125 even after his written representation not to do so and barring outgoing calls without prior notice and in evidence produced Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents.

The Opposite Party No.2 counters the said allegation and stated that as per scheme opted by the complainant in the application from the bills are issued and the complainant in order to evade payment of outstanding amount against them came out with false case and therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs in the ends of justice.

Heard arguments of both side Advocates and perused the material on record.
From customer application form (Ex.A1) it is clear that complainant opted for combi-offer 124 plan of the Opposite Party and paid Rs.1,999/- in cash. Ex.A2 clearly go to show that under combi-offer 124, 1,000 minutes, 1,000 SMS are free along with 150 free talk time.
But as per bill dated 11-10-2007 (Ex.A5) which was send by the Opposite Party to the complainant the tariff plan is H2M 125 plan. As seen from record the written representation of the complainant (Ex.A4) to provide free of change call facility from Tata to Tata as promised under the plan 124 and to send revised bill did not yield any result.
The Opposite Party did not inform the complainant about the change of tariff plan fro 124 to plan 125. The Opposite Party did not produce the complainants application form and also details of the scheme under combi-offer 124 which is in their possession to prove their version and to disprove the version of the complainant.
The Opposite Party did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that the combi-offer 124 was for a limited period and the complainant gave his consent for change of tariff plan from plan 124 to 125.
For failure to produce any evidence by Opposite Parties necessary and adverse inference shall have to be drawn against the version of the Opposite Party. We are therefore of the opinion that the complainant proved his allegation in the complaint against the Opposite Parties.

In view of the reasons stated above and material on record we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties to the complainant.
Accordingly this point goes in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties.

7. POINT No.2 :- In view of our findings on the foregoing point No.1 and the reasons mentioned there in we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for following reliefs.
The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally are directed to issue revised bills dated 11-10-2007 onwards under combi-offer 124 plan, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, And also to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of the complaint.

8. IN THE RESULT, the complaint is allowed partly as under:
The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally are direct to:
1)Issue revised bills dated 11-10-2007 onwards under combi-offer 124 plan.
2)to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony.
3)And also to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of the complaint
4)Time one month to comply from the date of receipt of order copy.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in Open Forum on this the 26th day of March 2009.



MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

(Witnesses examined on behalf of)

For the Complainant : For the Opposite Party:
Affidavit of Complainant Counter affidavit of opposite
filed as evidence party filed as evidence.

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

Ex.A1
Original customer application form of opposite parties in the name of complainant.


Ex.A2
Original writing on white papers slips.


Ex.A3
Original courier receipt No.168148 Dt.14-11-2007 addressed to opposite party by the complainant.


Ex.A4
Original courier receipt No.168148 Dt.14-11-2007 duly served on opposite party.


Ex.A5
Copy of representation letter addressed to opp No.1 by the complainant.


For the Opposite parties:

: : O R D E R : :

1.This complaint is filed by one B. Ajaykumar Badaseshi S/o Ragavendra Rao, R/o Gulbarga against the O.P.No.1 and 2 u/s.12 of Consumer Protection 1986 praying that, direction may be given to O.P. to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of complaint till realization. Further direction may be given to O.P. to provide connection which was illegally disconnected in the interest of justice.

2.The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as under;
Complainant had applied for telephone connection of O.P.No.1 having purchased the U.S.B. Modem for the internet usage from the O.P.No.2 the branch of O.P.No.1 with plan 325, accordingly O.Ps. provided the telephone connection vide No.09243227723 under 325 vadat plan. As per the information furnished and also condition mentioned in the Boucher provided to complainant on 22.9.2007 i.e the date of connection, the tariff for plan 325 is free usage of 1800 minutes or 30 hours per month and for additional usage after 1800 minutes is Rs.00.50 per minute, but O.P.No.1 and 2 have not prepared the bills as per the plan, but have illegally claimed excess amount than the actual usages as against the plan 325. It is submitted here that, from 22.9.2007 to 24th October 2007 i.e for one month the complainant had not received any bill even though the complainant had furnished the detail address as demanded by the O.P. at the time of applying for the connection. However on 25th October 2007, complainant personally visited the O.P. office and requested to furnish the copy of bill, but on that day it was told to complainant that the bill was already mailed it might not have served on the complainant, so O.P. told to pay tentatively an amount of Rs.430/- and also assured that they get a duplicate copy of bill from the O.P.No.1 office and it will be served on the complainant later on. As per the demand of the O.P., complainant paid an amount of Rs.430/- tentatively, but even after several visits and calls to the customer care numbers provided by the O.P. the complainant was not furnished with the copy of bill for the period from 22.9.2007 to 24.10.2007. However in the last week of October, complainant had received a phone call from O.P.No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.1256/-, but when asked for the detail bill it was not furnished. However complainant taken copy of details of usages from the internet and it was not tallied with the demand of the O.P., as such complainant went on requesting to send the detail bill, but the same was not provided and amount as calculated by the complainant was not received by the O.P.No.2 and ultimately O.P. have illegally disconnected the connection without issuing any prior notice or intimation. The act of disconnection amounts to deficiency of service. Complainant was having the internet connection, he had collected the particulars of usages through modem and as per those particulars complainant had never used more than the free facility provided as such complainant has not violated any of the conditions of plan. Further complainant is dealing in share market and was getting information through internet, but the illegal disconnection of line, complainant had spent more then Rs.5,000/- for getting information from the market. Further due to illegal disconnection, complainant had put to hardship and humiliation among the friends and relatives. Therefore he claiming amount of Rs.10,000/- towards hardships and mental agony. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that, complaint may be allowed and direction may be given to O.P. as prayed in the complaint.

3.After registering the case, notices were issued to O.Ps. After serving the notices, O.P.No.1 appeared through counsel and filed Written Statement. Though notice served in this case to O.P.No.2, he did not appear, hence O.P.No.2 placed exparte. O.P.No.1 filed Written Statement contending that, O.P. have sent bills as per the schedule to all subscribers including complainant and he has paid the amount of Rs.430/-. Hence non-receiving of the bill is not correct. It is only to make good facilities if the subscribes comes to the office, he will be given duplicate bills, hence the allegation that bills were not furnished to complainant for the period from 22.9.2007 to 24.10.2007 is not correct. O.P. has sent the bill as per usage for Rs.1256/-. The statement of complaint that, details of the usage is not tallied with the demand of the O.P. is not correct. Absolutely there is no reason for the O.P. to demand the excess charge. For the non-payment of the dues, O.P. has disconnected which is in accordance with condition, complainant is very much aware of this. Absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P. Admittedly complainant is a businessman and it is naturally to make use of internet and further he should also be prompt in clearing dues within time. The disconnection is not illegal, accordingly claiming any damages against the O.P. is not correct. Complaint is not maintainable. Complainant is not a consumer as defined under the act. In view of the above facts, it is submitted that, complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.To prove the claim of complainant, himself was filed affidavit by way of evidence who examined as PW-1, documents got marked Exh.P-1 to P-6. O.P.No.1 also filed affidavit by way of cross of PW-1. Complainant side evidence closed. O.P.No.1 filed affidavit by way of evidence, who examined as RW-1, got marked documents Exh.R-1 to R-5. Complainant filed affidavit by way of cross of RW-1. O.P. side evidence closed.

5.Heard the arguments from both sides.

6.The points that arises for our consideration are;
(1)Whether there is a deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps?

(2)What Order?

7.Our answer to the above points are as under:-

(1)Yes.

(2)As per final order for the following;

: : R E A S O N S : :

8.Point No:1 :
We have carefully perused the evidence of complainant, affidavit and documents. Complainant case is that, he had applied for telephone connection before O.P.No.1, accordingly O.Ps. have provided the telephone connection vide No.09243227723 under 325 vadat plan. The tariff for plan 325 is free usage of 1800 minutes or 30 hours per month and for additional usage after 1800 minutes is Rs.00.50 per minute, but O.Ps. have not prepared the bills as per the plan, they have illegally claimed excess amount than the actual usages as against the plan 325. Further it is averred in the complaint that, complainant had not received any bill from 22.9.2007 to 24th October 2007. However on 25th October 2007, he personally visited the O.P. office and requested to furnish the copy of bill, but on that day it was told by O.Ps. that the bill was already mailed, it might not have served on him, so O.P. told to pay tentatively an amount of Rs.430/- and also assured that they get a duplicate copy of bill from the O.P.No.1 office and it will be served on the complainant later on. Further he has deposed in the evidence that, as per the demand of the O.P., complainant paid an amount of Rs.430/- tentatively, but even after several visits and making telephone calls to the customer care numbers, he was not furnished with the copy of bill for the period from 22.9.2007 to 24.10.2007. However in the last week of October, complainant received a phone call from O.P.No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.1256/-, when he asked for the detail bill it was not furnished by O.Ps. However complainant taken copy of details of usages from the internet which was not tallied with the demand of the O.Ps., as such he went on requesting to send the detail bill, but the same was not sent to him and amount as calculated by the him was not received by the O.P.No.2 and ultimately O.P. have illegally disconnected the connection without giving any notice or intimation. The act of disconnection amounts to deficiency of service. He was examined as PW-1 got marked documents, Exh.P-1 is brochure belonging to O.P. company, Exh.P-2 is letter issued by complainant to O.Ps., Exh.P-3 is details of usage with amount from 29.9.2007 to 25.11.2007, Exh.P-4 is bill which was issued by O.P.No.1, Exh.P-5 is letter issued by O.P.No.1’s advocate to complainant, Exh.P-6 is Internet log. On the other hand, O.P.No.1 also filed affidavit by way of evidence who deposed that, he has sent bills as per the schedule to all subscribers including complainant, accordingly complainant paid the amount of Rs.430/-. Hence non-receiving of the bill is not correct. It is only to make good facilities if the subscribes comes to the office, he will be given duplicate bills. O.P. has sent the bill as per usage for Rs.1256/-. The details of the usage is not tallied with the demand of the O.P. is not correct. O.P. has disconnected the telephone which is in accordance with condition. Further he has deposed in his evidence that, there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P. Complainant is a businessman and it is naturally to make use of internet and further he should also be prompt in clearing dues within time. The disconnection is not illegal, accordingly claiming any damages against the O.P. is not correct. During the course of his evidence, he was examined as RW-1, documents got marked, Exh.R-1 to R-4 are bills which were issued by O.Ps., Exh.R-5 is application form. In this case, complainant opted 325 plan for using internet. The main dispute between the parties is that, O.P. has asked complainant to pay Rs.1256/- for the period from 22.9.2007 to 24.10.2007. Complainant has not received any bills. On careful going through the document Exh.P-6 which are internet log which reveals that, for the period from 29.9.2007 to 29.10.2007, complainant has used 19 hours 2 minutes 40 seconds. Complainant opted tariff plan 325, free usage of 1800 minutes or 30 hours. On going through the document Exh.P-6 it reveals that complainant usage is only 19 hours 2 minutes 40 seconds for the said period. The learned counsel for the complainant cited ruling which is reported in CPJ 2007(I) Page-427 in a case of Arun Saxena V/s. Reliance Web World & Another wherein their Lordships have observed as under;
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Mobiles – Connection giving service for outgoing and incoming calls, stopped – Despite being contacted, O.P.No.1did nothing to restore service – Contention of O.P., no talk time left at credit of complainant and disruption in service was his own fault – O.P. failed to substantiate his sole defence – Complainant submitted that he had sufficient talk time at his credit at relevant time – Deficiency in service proved – O.P. liable”.

On going through the above ruling, it is correctly applicable to the case in hand. In the present case, complainant is claiming compensation of Rs.15,000/-. But to prove this aspect, he has not filed any documents nor adduced any independent witnesses showing that, he has sustained any loss. Therefore, if we award Rs.5,000/-, it will meets ends of justice. On going through the evidence of complainant, affidavit and documents, in our considered opinion, there is a deficiency of service on the part of O.P., accordingly we answered this point in affirmative.

9.Point No.2 :
In view of the discussions made on point No.1, we also answered this point in affirmative. Hence we proceed to pass the following;

: : O R D E R : :

Complaint is partly allowed. Complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of realization from the O.Ps. Further complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony and cost of this proceedings from O.Ps. The O.Ps. are directed to restore the telephone connection. Further O.Ps. are directed to comply the order of this Forum jointly and severally within one month from the date of this order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in open Forum on this the 7th day of March 2009).




(1) Shri. Shivananda Katti
President


(2) Smt. Gopemma,
Member


(3) Shri V.S.Yekkelli,
Member

: : O R D E R : :
1. This complaint is filed by one Baljeet Singh Bhatiya S/o Awater Singh, R/o. Super Market, Gulbarga against the OP U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, praying that, direction may be given to OP to pay Rs.25,000/- towards loss of business, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/-towards misbehavior and deficiency in service in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as under;
OP is Teleservice Company rendering service in telecommunication under consideration, whereas the Complainant has availed telephone service from OP. Hence Complainant is consumer under the said act. Complainant is flourishing businessman in footwear under the name and style as “Regal Foot Wears”, Super Market Gulbarga and his monthly turn over is more than Rs.1,00,000/- and he is income tax payee. Complainant has availed OP Company’s talky telephone instrument, number 652610, simultaneously he has purchased another mobile phone bearing No.9243227610 from OP. Both numbers were post paid, fetching monthly bill of Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- each. So office of the OP advised Complainant to pay both the bills under one account bearing No. 204303515, since then Complainant is remitting monthly bills through the said account number. After receiving monthly bills by Complainant, the collecting Executive Officer of OP used to follow to the shop of Complainant, respecting him Complainant used to pay post dated cheque by taking valid receipt without sending him back with empty hand. This aspect has been in practice since lost one and half years, Complainant has never committed default of giving bogus cheque. In the same manner, after receiving bill for the month of May-2007, Collecting Executive of OP, visited shop of Complainant on 23-6-2007, respecting him Complainant has given post dated cheque brg. No.033682, dated 30-6-2007 for sum of Rs.1474/- of Andra Bank, by accepting it, the Collecting Executive of OP has given receipt vide No.Gul/10263. It is surprise to note that, immediately next day evening i.e. on 24-6-2007, OP has abruptly disconnected both the instruments bearing No.652610 (Talky) and 93243227610 (Mobiles) of Complainant for non-payment of bill. Thereafter he rushed up to OP office and asked to resume for disconnected telephone service. After repeated request OP accepted his complaint brg. No.76082575 on 25-6-2007 and was pleased to resume the service on 26-6-2007. Again OP has abruptly with malafide intention disconnected the telephone services, which amounts to deficiency in service. This is not first time that, Executives of OP have misbehaved with Complainant, but prior to in the month of October 2006 Executives of OP have done the same thing, then Complainant reported to superior authority, then the Executive had given an Apology letter to Complainant endorsing the signatures of all Executives in writing directing condone their misbehavior. The cause of action arose to file this complaint and this Forum have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that, complaint may be allowed and direction may be given to OP to pay compensation as prayed in the complaint.


3.After registering the case, notice was issued to OP. After serving the notice, O.P., appeared through Counsel and filed written statement contending that, in reply to Para 4 of the complaint regarding the customer was issued bill dated 02-6-2007, it is submitted that, the outstanding amount was Rs.1,587/-, it is bill for the period of 29/4/2007 to 29/5/2007 and due date is 18/6/2007. However the customer has paid the said amount of Rs.1474/- on 30/6/2007, that means he has paid 12 days after the due date. In view of the same his outgoing calls were barred on 29/6/2007, since amount was realized on 30-6-2007, on the same day his line was restored. Therefore there is no mistake from OP, copies of the duplicate bill for the period 29-4-2007 to 29-5-2007 and 30-5-2007 to 28-6-2007 also the printout of customer relation management software wherein the amount paid is enclosed. It is further contended that, this complaint is not maintainable against the OP, as he is not manufacturer and not liable for anything found wrong with instruments. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that, complaint may be dismissed with cost.



4.To prove claim of complainant, himself was filed affidavit by way of evidence, who examined as PW-1, documents got marked as Exh.P-1 to P-12. OP filed affidavit by way of cross of PW-1, Complainant side evidence closed. OP also filed affidavit by way of evidence, who examined as RW-1, documents got marked as Ex.R.1 to R.7. Complainant also filed affidavit by way of cross of RW-.1 OP side evidence closed.

5.Heard the arguments from both sides.

6. The points that arises for our consideration are;
(1) Whether there is a deficiency of service on the part of O.P?

(2)What Order?

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:-
(1) Yes.

(2) As per final order for the following;

: : R E A S O N S : :

8. Point No:1 :
We have carefully perused the affidavit, evidence of PW-1 and documents of Complainant. Complainant’s case is that, he has availed OP Company’s talky telephone instrument, bearing number 652610, simultaneously he has purchased another mobile phone bearing No.9243227610 from OP. Both numbers were post paid, fetching monthly bill of Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- each. So office of the OP advised Complainant to pay both the bills under one account bearing No. 204303515, since then Complainant is remitting his monthly bills through the said account number. After receiving monthly bill for the month of May-2007, the Collecting Executive of OP has visited shop of Complainant on 23-6-2007, respecting him Complainant has given post dated cheque brg. No.033682, dated 30-6-2007 for sum of Rs.1474/- of Andra Bank, by accepting it, Collecting Executive of OP has given receipt vide No.Gul/10263. It is surprise to note that, immediately next day evening i.e. on 24-6-2007, OP has abruptly disconnected both the instruments bearing No.652610 (Talky) and 93243227610 (Mobiles) of Complainant for non-payment of bill. During the course of his evidence he was examined as PW-1, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 are receipts. Ex.P.6, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 are postal receipt, UCP and postal acknowledgment respectively. Ex.P.9 is copy of legal notice. Ex.P.10 is reply to legal notice. Ex.P.11 is apology letter which was given by one of Executive of OP. Ex.P.12 is sale tax, which was paid by Complainant. On the other hand OP has also filed affidavit by way of evidence, who examined as RW-1, Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 are duplicate bills. Ex.R.5 is blank application form. Ex.R.6 is outgoing calls disconnected details. Ex.R.7 is copy of payment details. As per order on IA-I & II OP has already complied order of this Forum. Since this Forum has given direction to OP to give connection to the said phone numbers immediately, accordingly OP has complied order of this Forum. On careful perusal of evidence and documents of Complainant, who deposed in his evidence that, due to dis-connecting his telephone numbers he has sustained heavy loss in his business, hence totally Complainant is claiming Rs. 85,000/-. We have also carefully perused the evidence and documents of OP, he deposed in his evidence that, Complainant has to pay outstanding bill amount of Rs.1,587/-, it is bill for the period of 29/4/2007 to 29/5/2007 and due date is on 18/6/2007. But Complainant has paid amount of Rs.1474/- on 30/6/2007, the said bill was paid 12 days later after the due date. Hence his outgoing calls were dis-connected on 29/6/2007, since amount was realized on 30-6-2007, on the same day his phone line was restored as per Ex.R.6. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. On going through the evidence of Complainant, which goes to show that, he has paid bills regularly. Further he is claiming Rs.25,000/- towards loss of business, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/-towards misbehavior and deficiency in service on the part of OP. But to prove this aspect, he has not examined any independent witness, nor filed any document, showing that he has sustained loss in his business. Mere taking evidence and documents, he has a reputed dealer in Gulbarga selling Foot Wear, this aspect cannot be considered. OP has already complied the order passed on IA-I & II and he has already given re-connection to Complainant’s telephone numbers. Therefore on careful perusal of evidence and documents of the Complainant, in our considered opinion, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP, if we award Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony, loss in business and costs of the proceedings, it will meets ends of justice, accordingly we answered this point in affirmative.

9. Point No.2:-
In view of the discussions made on point No.1, we also answered this point in affirmative. Hence we proceed to pass the following;

: : O R D E R : :

Complaint is partly allowed. Complainant is entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony, loss in business and costs of the proceedings. Further O.P. is directed to pay the said amount within one month from the date of this order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the 7th day of March 2009).



(1) Shri. Shivananda Katti
(President.)

(2) Smt. Gopemma,
(Member)


(3) Shri V.S.Yekkelli,
(Member

ORDER


COMPLAINT NO. 1205/2008 COMPLAINANT

V. Rao Gulur, S/o. Gulur Seshagiri Rao (Late) Aged 70 years, Residing at Flat # T3, Plot # 33, “Shravanthi Crescent” Yelachanahalli, Bangalore – 560 062.

V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. TATA Tele Services Ltd., Block ‘A’, Silicon Terraces, 30/1, Hosur Main Road, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095. 2. TATA Telecom Services, G-1, Bharathi Towers One, 10th Floor, 124, Connaught Circle, New Delhi – 110 001. Advocate (Krishnamurthy M.R.)

O R D E R

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund an amount of Rs.3,200/- plus Rs.1,650/- along with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed the services of the OP by making payment of Rs.3,200/- and Rs.1,650/-.

With all that since 2007 he was getting unwanted calls from the OP with regard to marketing junk products. For no fault of the complainant, he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. As and when he received the call he answered, thus he was made to pay the charges. Though he made repeated requests to OP to stop such kind of intrusion and nuisance, it went in vain.

Complainant requested the OP to take back their equipment and refund whatever the amount he has paid. Though OP received and acknowledged the said request of the complainant, failed to respond.

Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. At the beginning this complaint is filed against OP.3 TRAI, later on complainant filed a Memo to delete OP.3. Hence OP.3 is deleted. 2. Though OP.1 and 2 were duly served with a notice, they remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP.1 and 2 does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP.1 and 2 are placed ex-parte. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP.1 and 2 did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. An Order came to be passed on 15th July 2008 allowing the complaint in part. 3. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, complainant preferred an Appeal No. 1844/2008 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking enhancement of the compensation. OP appeared in the said Appeal, then the said Appeal came to be allowed vide order dated 17.12.2008 and matter is remitted back to this Forum to dispose of the matter afresh after affording opportunity to the litigating parties. In pursuance of the same OP appeared and filed the version. The defence set out by the OP in nutshell is as under.

That the equipment is belonging to the complainant, hence the question of taking it back and pay the cost of Rs.3,200/- does not arise, the claim of Rs.1,650/- is also arbitrary. It is further contended that the connection taken by the complainant is a prepaid connection, if at all he does not want to continue OP service he can stop buying the currency and make request for disconnection of telephone. As per the Telecom Unsolicited Commercial Communication Regulations, a customer who does not want to receive any unsolicited commercial communication (UCC) may register his number in the National Do Not Call List, complainant has not done the same. Hence he cannot allege the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainant is using the said telephone connection even till today.

As the complainant purchased the said instrument of his own choice, he cannot direct the OP to take it back and refund the cost. The other allegations made in the complaint with regard to the exorbitant claim of compensation are imaginary and baseless. The complaint is devoid of merits.

Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.


4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed?
Point No. 3 :- To what Order?


5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative
Point No.2:- Affirmative in part
Point No.3:- As per final Order.



R E A S O N S 6. It is the case of the complainant that he availed OP.1 and 2 tele service by making payment of Rs.3,200/- and Rs.1,650/-. OP.1 and 2 in order to carry out their illegal marketing warfare used to make repeated calls to the number held by the complainant. As and when he heard the ring tone he has replied it, for that for no fault of his, he was made to pay the call charges. Though he made repeated requests and demands to OP not to send such unwanted phone calls, it went in vain. Thus he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss due to the illegal intrusion and nuisance caused by the OP. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant not to disturb him in that way, went in futile. The correspondence made by the complainant and legal notice caused are produced.


7. As against this it is contended by the OP that the said instrument is purchased by the complainant which is of his choice and it is his own, so the question of OP taking it back and refund the cost of the instrument does not arise. We find substance in the said defence. It is further contended by the OP that the connection taken by the complainant is a prepaid connection, he has availed the said service since the year 2006, there were no such complaints earlier and if the complainant feels that it is not advisible to continue OP service he can stop buying the currency and make a request for disconnection.

Again we find the substance in this defence also. If the complainant is not satisfied with the service extended by the OP, he can opt for disconnection and stop buying the currency. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant, we do not think that some prejudice is caused to him. 8. The main grievance of the complainant is that he was getting day in day out even including the peak hours, the unwanted calls just to promote their so called marketing of the junk products and that marketing warfare caused him nuisance. Complainant did make efforts in intimating the OP to stop making unwanted calls, it appears there was no response. To that extent the evidence of the complainant appears to be very natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony in that regard. Of course OP has come up with the defence that if the customer who does not want to receive unsolicited commercial communication (UCC) may register his number in National
Do Not Call List.

Now the burden is on the OP to show that such an instructions is given to the customer/ the consumer. Merely because it is noted in some regulations, it does not mean that each and every customer is in know of the said regulations.


9. Even before making such a junk calls, OP failed to notify that there is a remedy open to the consumer and the customer to stop it by registering their number in Do Not Call Register. But there is no such proof that such an intimation is given to the complainant. Hence for this simple reason we find complainant for no fault of his, is made to suffer both mental agony, financial loss as well nuisance, it must have affected his day today life. On the close scrutiny of the defence of the OP it has not disputed the fact of sending of such unsolicited commercial communications every now and then, that itself amounts to deficiency in service. When that is so, complainant is justified in claiming the damages and compensation.


10. With regard to the use of the said telephone till today and option being given to the complainant to stop buying currency, seek for disconnection, it is left to the discretion of the complainant. But as far as the mental agony and interference in the peaceful living is concerned, complainant deserves some compensation. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- appears to be exorbitant and unreasonable. As already observed by us, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- will meet the ends of justice along with litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:


O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP.1 and 2 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26th day of March 2009.)

IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN

No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020

consumer case(CC) No. CC/1323/2008

Mr. B.K.Sinha
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

TATA Indicom
...........Respondent(s)


ORDER NO: 1323 OF 2008

B.K. Sinha S/o. Late R.K.P. Sinha R/at B-16, Kudremukh Colony 2nd Block Koramangala Bangalore 560 034 Complainant

V/S

1. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Sanjay Nagar Main Road No.

2, K.E.B. Layout Geddalahalli Bangalore 560052 Represented by its Gen. Manager

2. Tata Indicom ‘A’ Block, Silicon Terrace 30/1, Hosur Main Road Koramangala, Bangalore 560095

Represented by its Manager Opposite Parties


ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of the case are that complainant is a Management Consultant and he has clients all over India and abroad. Complainant was a post paid dial-up customer of VSNL. Account was linked to his credit card which was to expire in December 2006. Complainant received a mail from VSNL.

Complainant placed an order for new form. Inspite of many attempts VSNL did not sent the form. On 31.12.2006 he tried to open the internet. He was told that account of the complainant had been de-activated because credit card linked to the account was expired. In December 2005 he was advised to switch over to post paid plan and he agreed. Even after payment of Rs. 111/- no form was received by the complainant. Opposite parties have committed breach of faith and caused immense inconvenience to complainant. Notice issued on 01.06.2007 through advocate calling upon the opposite parties to settle the claim.

The disconnection of internet services by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 404/- for deficiency in service and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for loss in business and loss in reputation. Cause of action arose on 26.11.2006 when the complainant placed an order for facilitation form. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite parties be directed to pay Rs. 400/- with interest and damages. 2. Notice issued to opposite parties.

Opposite parties put in appearance through advocate and filed their defence version. It is submitted that the account of complainant had de-activated because credit card linked to his internet account has expired. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant did not renew pre-paid account. There is no cause of action for the complainant to file present complaint.

As per the complainant’s own admission the brand band service was made use for commercial purpose. Therefore, the complainant has no right to file the present complaint. Complainant failed to make payment amount due to the first opposite party under monthly bills. For that reason service provided by the opposite party No. 1 was terminated. 3. Affidavit evidences are filed. 4. Arguments are heard. 5. In the light of arguments advanced by the learned advocates the following points arise for consideration:

“1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

2. Whether the complainant is ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?


6. The complainant in para 2 of his complaint has admitted that he is a Management Consultant and he has got client all over India and abroad and he has been doing his consultancy service through internet. For this pleading the opposite party in the defence version submitted that on the own admission of the complainant the broad band service was being made use for commercial purpose and therefore, the complainant has no right to file the present complaint and he is not a ‘Consumer’ under section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Therefore, the complaint be dismissed on this point itself. Section 2(1)(d) defines ‘Consumer’.

The consumer means any person who buys any goods for consideration but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose or hires or avails of any service for consideration which has been paid or promised, but, does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose. Admittedly, the complainant in his complaint at para 2 clearly stated that he is the Management Consultant. He has client all over India and abroad, he has been doing his consultancy service through internet. Therefore, it is clear that he has availed service of opposite parties for commercial purpose.

It is not the case of the complainant that he has availed the services of opposite parties exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. No where in the entire complaint the complainant never stated that he had availed the service of the opposite parties exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment. So with these facts the learned advocate for the opposite parties argued that the complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, on this ground itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is considerable force and merit in the submission by the opposite parties.

The complaint deserves to be dismissed, since the present complainant does not come under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined under section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act. It is wholly unnecessary for me to discuss other aspects of the case since the complaint itself is not maintainable. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach Civil Court or in any other forum if he is so advised. Taking into consideration of the pleadings of the parties the complaint is not maintainable before this forum. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 7. The Complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.

Shri Hitesh Pal S/O Shri B.S. Pal,

R/O Village Dadi Bhola, P.O. Nalagarh,

Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, HP.



… Complainant

Versus



1. M/S Tata Tele services,

Sai Road Baddi, P.O. Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh,

District Solan, H.P.

Through its Manager.



2. M/S Tata Tele services,

Circle Office, Hari Villa, Mauza Chotta Shimla,

Kasumpti Road, Shimla, Tehsil & Distt. Shimla, HP.

…Opposite Parties.

O R D E R:



Per, Virender Thakur, Member:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he is subscriber of landline telephone bearing No.092184-96965, afforded to him by the OPs-Company. He further proceeded to aver, that the OPs-Company disconnected the services of the aforesaid landline, on the pretext that the bill for the period 05.12.2007 to 04.01.2008, amounting to Rs. 393/- was deposited by the complainant, after due date. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Company and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs-Company, in its written version, to the complaint, admitted that the complainant is their subscriber. However, they contend that since the complainant failed to deposit the unbilled amount, hence, the billing system automatically suspended the services temporarily. Hence, it is, denied that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The landline telephone of the complainant, was disconnected by the OPs-Company, for non-payment of bill, for the period 05.12.2007 to 04.01.2008, amounting to Rs.393/-, the due date, whereof, as detailed in the said bill, was 24.01.2008. They have failed to substantiate their defence that the complainant paid the aforesaid bill, after due date, i.e. 24.01.2008, whereas, the complainant has depended upon Annexure C-3, in order to prove the fact that he paid the bill, on, 24.01.2008. Hence, the action of the OPs-Company, in disconnecting the landline telephone of the complainant, without any justifiable cause, was arbitrary and illegal, as such amounts to deficiency in service. The OPs-Company, has not been able to repulse the fact of Annexure C-3, by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, without going into further aspect of the matter, it is to be construed that their was apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Company, in theirs disconnecting the landline telephone of the complainant, without any justifiable cause.

6. Resultantly, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs-Company as follows:-

i) That the OPs-Company, shall restore the landline telephone of the complainant, if not already restored;



ii) That the OPs-Company, shall pay Rs.2500/-to the complainant, as compensation, for illegally and arbitrarily disconnecting his landline telephone;



iii) That the OPs-Company, shall also pay Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant;



iv) That the OP-Company, shall comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;

7. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Date of decision: 15.09.2009

***********Shri Satish Kumar Bindal



… Complainant.



Versus



M/S Tata Tele Services Ltd and others



… Opposite Parties

O R D E R:





Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) (Oral) President:- This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that he was subscriber of telephone connections bearing No.5535489 & 5538489, which were disconnected by the OPs, on the purported ground of non-payment of outstanding bills, Which are, alleged to be excessive, as well as inflated, as, he has not used the telephone to such an extent so as to cause disconnection. The learned counsel for the OP has seriously refuted the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OP, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bills, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered calls of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such calls shall render, its, finding. It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OP proceeds to conduct an inquiry, it, shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry. The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record. In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OP, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh.



It is made clear that in case the complainant intends to have avail the telephone facility of the aforesaid numbers, the OPs shall restore the said numbers, after rendering the inquiry order. The complaint is disposed of accordingly. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

****************

Shri Hitesh Pal S/O Shri B.S. Pal,

R/O Village Dadi Bhola, P.O. Nalagarh,

Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, HP.



… Complainant

Versus



1. M/S Tata Tele services,

Sai Road Baddi, P.O. Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh,

District Solan, H.P.

Through its Manager.



2. M/S Tata Tele services,

Circle Office, Hari Villa, Mauza Chotta Shimla,

Kasumpti Road, Shimla, Tehsil & Distt. Shimla, HP.

…Opposite Parties.







O R D E R:



The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he is subscriber of landline telephone bearing No.092184-96965, afforded to him by the OPs-Company. He further proceeded to aver, that the OPs-Company disconnected the services of the aforesaid landline, on the pretext that the bill for the period 05.12.2007 to 04.01.2008, amounting to Rs. 393/- was deposited by the complainant, after due date. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Company and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs-Company, in its written version, to the complaint, admitted that the complainant is their subscriber. However, they contend that since the complainant failed to deposit the unbilled amount, hence, the billing system automatically suspended the services temporarily. Hence, it is, denied that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The landline telephone of the complainant, was disconnected by the OPs-Company, for non-payment of bill, for the period 05.12.2007 to 04.01.2008, amounting to Rs.393/-, the due date, whereof, as detailed in the said bill, was 24.01.2008. They have failed to substantiate their defence that the complainant paid the aforesaid bill, after due date, i.e. 24.01.2008, whereas, the complainant has depended upon Annexure C-3, in order to prove the fact that he paid the bill, on, 24.01.2008. Hence, the action of the OPs-Company, in disconnecting the landline telephone of the complainant, without any justifiable cause, was arbitrary and illegal, as such amounts to deficiency in service.


The OPs-Company, has not been able to repulse the fact of Annexure C-3, by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, without going into further aspect of the matter, it is to be construed that their was apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Company, in theirs disconnecting the landline telephone of the complainant, without any justifiable cause.

6. Resultantly, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs-Company as follows:-

i) That the OPs-Company, shall restore the landline telephone of the complainant, if not already restored;



ii) That the OPs-Company, shall pay Rs.2500/-to the complainant, as compensation, for illegally and arbitrarily disconnecting his landline telephone;



iii) That the OPs-Company, shall also pay Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant;



iv) That the OP-Company, shall comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;

7. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Shri Satish Kumar Bindal



… Complainant.



Versus



M/S Tata Tele Services Ltd and others



… Opposite Parties



O R D E R:




This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that he was subscriber of telephone connections bearing No.5535489 & 5538489, which were disconnected by the OPs, on the purported ground of non-payment of outstanding bills, Which are, alleged to be excessive, as well as inflated, as, he has not used the telephone to such an extent so as to cause disconnection. The learned counsel for the OP has seriously refuted the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OP, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bills, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered calls of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such calls shall render, its, finding. It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OP proceeds to conduct an inquiry, it, shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry.


The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record. In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OP, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh. It is made clear that in case the complainant intends to have avail the telephone facility of the aforesaid numbers, the OPs shall restore the said numbers, after rendering the inquiry order. The complaint is disposed of accordingly. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Mukesh Kumar Gupta son of Sh. Keshwa Nand, resident of 4969, Ram Nagar, Samrala Road, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1. Tata Teleservices Limited, Regd. office Jiwan Bharti Tower-1, 10th floor, 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, through its Director.



2. Chief Executive officer, Tata Teleservices Limited Circle Office, Tata Teleservices Limited, C-125, Phase-VIII, Industrial Focal Point, Mohali.



3. Manager, Tele Teleservices limited, Mall Road, Ludhiana.

(opposite parties)







O R D E R



1. Complainant is subscriber from opposite party qua landline telephone number 0161-6574969 since 2-3 years. Qua this phone, opposite party in monthly bill for the period from 5.3.2008 to 4.4.2008 imposed data service (subscribe cricket) charges of Rs.49/-. He telephonically protested on 18.4.2008 leveling of such charges. Was assured to delete the same and on such assurances deposited out of the bill of Rs.283/- a sum of Rs.220/-. But in next bill for the period from 5.4.2998 to 4.5.2008, a sum of Rs.343/- was claimed including Rs.49/- taxes as Renewal Cricket.


Upon it, application dated 14.5.2008 was moved to Chief Executive Officer of the opposite party to revoke illegal charges of Rs.49/- claimed in this bill and also of the previous bill plus taxes. He then deposited Rs.230/- out of the entire bill. In next bill for the period from 5.5.2008 to 4.6.2008, opposite party demanded Rs. 390/- and again claimed Rs.49/- plus taxes as renewal cricket charges. Opposite party in that bill adjusted Rs.55.06p.


Though they were required to adjust Rs.147/- + taxes, total Rs.165/-. So, complainant out of that bill deposited Rs.290/-. As opposite party was repeatedly claiming cricket up date charges in his bills, so, moved letter dated 14.6.2008 to the C.E.O. of the opposite party to disconnect his telephone connection and to refund security amount of Rs.1000/-. Despite it, his connection was not disconnected nor security refunded. Rather, opposite party sent another bill for Rs.350/- for the period 5.6.08 to 4.7.08, again claimed the renewal cricket charges of 49/- + taxes.


In that bill only Rs.49/- were adjusted. Complainant deposited Rs.240/-, liability of the bill. Then served legal notice dated 30.7.2008 requiring opposite party to remove the telephone connection, release his security amount of Rs.1000/- and pay Rs.5000/- as compensation .Notice was falsely replied by opposite party vide reply dated 12.8.2008. Opposite party then disconnected his telephone connection, had sent illegal bill of Rs.240/- for the period 5.7.2008 to 4.8.2008 . Again imposed Rs.49/- as taxes and data services illegally. Since 15.7.2008, the telephone is dead being disconnected.


Such act on the part of opposite party is claimed amounting to deficiency in service. Hence, for causing harassment by filing the present claimed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has claimed compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.11,000/- as litigation cost and refund of security amount of Rs.1000/-.

2. Opposite parties in reply averred that the complaint deserve dismissal as there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is admitted that complainant is subscriber of phone under the opposite party but denied making regular payment of the bills. Claimed that a sum of Rs.949/- for the period from 5.8.2008 to 4.11.2008 is due from the complainant and due to such reason his telephone connection was temporarily suspended. Value added services to the phone of the complainant were added as per his choice, he got himself activated. Consequently, Rs.49/- for such services were charged. His allegations that he was charged for such services illegally are wrong. Qua bill for the period 5.3.2008 to 4.4.2008 for Rs.283/-, complainant only deposited Rs.220/-. Balance Rs.63/- was added in his next bill for the period from 5.4.2008 to 4.5.2008. No assurances were given to the complainant as claimed by him.


Denied receipt of application dated 14.5.2008 from the complainant to reverse amount of Rs.49/- plus taxes. As a gesture of goodwill, one time waiver qua subscription charges was given to the complainant and Rs.55.06p were waived from his bill for the period 5.5.2008 to 4.6.2008. They have also pleaded that to close unwanted litigation, are ready to waive the subscription charges levelled till date and refund the security amount of Rs.1000/- after adjusting valid charges such as rental, usages, taxes etc, subject to returning walky instrument and accessories by the complainant.

3. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file and scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. First and foremost point to be decided in this complaint is whether the complainant himself opted or applied for value added services such as data services? Because, the complainant claimed that he never sought such services and opposite party wrongfully started claiming Rs.49/- under the aforesaid head in his bill dated 7.4.2008 for the period 5.3.2008 to 4.4.2008. Though opposite parties have specifically pleaded that such value added services were provided to the complainant on his request. But there is nothing ascertaining such allegations or charge of the opposite party. On the other hand, complainant has brought sufficient evidence or material on the record to prove that value added services were never sought by him from the opposite party and they of their own despite his objections and protest continued to charge him regularly for such services which he had never applied for or sought.

6. Aforesaid aspects are apparent from bill Ex.C.1 dated 7.4.2008 claiming Rs.49/- under data service; Ex.C.2 bill dated 7.5.2008 for the period from 5.4.2008 to 4.5.2008. Complainant then sent under postal certificate, communication Ex.C2/A to the Chief Executive Officer of the opposite party protesting charges of Rs.49/- in his both bills (Ex.C.1 and C2). This letter goes to show that complainant had never sought such like value added services qua his phone and consequently objected the charges thereunder.

7. Despite such objections in writing by the complainant, opposite party in their next bill dated 7.6.08 for the period 5.5.2008 to 4.6.2008 again charged Rs.49/- from the complainant. Then he sent another communication Ex.CW3/A dated 14.6.08 to the opposite party requiring them to surrender his connection along with telephone set and accessories and requested to cancel his connection.

8. But when nothing happened, complainant then sent legal notice Ex.C.5 dated 30.7,.2008 to the opposite party, which they replied vide reply Ex.C.6 dated 12.8.2008. It was intimated to the complainant that a sum of Rs.240/- was due from him and after adjusting the same from security, a sum of Rs.760/- is due and refundable to the complainant.

9. Prior to issuance of legal notice Ex.C.5 dated 30.7.2008, complainant had received bill dated 7.7.2008 for the period 5.6.08 to 4.7.08 from the opposite party wherein again a sum of Rs.49/- against data service was charged and a sum of Rs.49/- against this account was also shown to be adjusted. In bill dated 7.8.08 for the period from 5.7.08 to 4.8.08, Rs.49/- were again added in his bill and in next bill Ex.C.8 dated 7.9.08 for the period 5.8.08 to 4.9.08, Rs.98/- were claimed as data service charges. In bill Ex.C.9 dated 7.11.2008 for the period 5.10.08 to 4.11.2008, again Rs.98/- were claimed in his bill.

10. Sequence of events clearly spells that complainant had never applied for value added services from the opposite party. Rather, they of their own under data services from the bill dated 7.4.08 onward started claiming Rs.49/- per month. This was repeated in the next bill dated 7.5.08 and then complainant protested such charges vide letter Ex.C.2/A. Despite such protest, these charges were not refunded nor deleted from his bills as the charges were again claimed in next bill and then complainant vide letter Ex.C.3/A requested for cancellation of his telephone and on their failure to do so, issued legal notice Ex.C.5 dated 30.7.08.


All these events clearly spell and prove to the hilt that opposite party was deficient in rendering services towards its own consumer. Firstly they without request of the complainant charged him data services and consequently failed to delete such charges when repeatedly agitated by the complainant. Such act of opposite party caused harassment to the complainant, who consequently fed up with the services, requested for cancellation and disconnection of his telephone.

11. In these circumstances, deficiency in service on the part of opposite party is writ large on the face of the record.

Smt. Shiksha Thakur

… Complainant.

Versus



The Manager,

Tata Tele Services Limited.



…Opposite Party.







O R D E R:

Arguments heard. The complainant is aggrieved by the act of the OP in disconnecting the landline telephone bearing No.0177-5539116, provided at, his residential premises by the OP. The OP has defended its act on the strength of Annexure-A, which reflects that the landline telephone services provided by it, at the residential premises of the complainant, were disconnected, as a sum of Rs.1,302/- remained unpaid by the complainant to the OP. The said amount has been calculated after deducting from it, a, sum of Rs.1438/- tendered by the complainant to the OP.

Even though, the complainant denies the fact that, he, did not use the landline telephone service, yet, no satisfactory evidence to substantiate the said fact has been adduced, hence, when he did, not, tender the amount as reflected in Annexure-A, and that, too, within the time prescribed, the OP was legally competent, to, disconnect the landline telephone provided by the OP, at the residential premises of the complainant. In theirs doing so, there, is, no deficiency in service.

However, on the complainant depositing with the OP, the sum of the money, as reflected in Annexure-A, the OP shall reconnect the landline telephone bearing No.0177-5539116. The complainant shall deposit the aforesaid sum, as reflected in Annexure-A, with the OP, within a period of fifteen days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order, and thereafter, the OP, shall reconnect the aforesaid landline telephone forthwith. With this, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Respected sir,

sub: Prepaid tariff complaint
i(p.vijay kumar) have been using tata prepaid offer which was introduced in dec-2007(unlimited plan to tata - tata)in which they have said to pay rs 2008 which includes rs 2008 talk time,2008 days validity and 2008 days tata to tata unlimited free. And on this day before the time period expired they have suddenly stopped the offer.
I request you to take certain action on the faulty scheme and on the concerned in charge of the tariff.
Thanking you,
yours faithfully
p.vijay kumar

Complaint Case No :1274 of 2009

Date of Institution : 04.09.2009

Date of Decision : 01.12.2009

Lekh Raj, #2 (Near SBOP), Vill. Daruya (Near Rly. Station), U.T. Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S



1] The Managing Director, TATA Tele Services Ltd., C-125, Phase-VIII, Industrial Focal Point, Mohali – 160071.



2] AGM Communication Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 3013, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties





CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER



Argued by:Complainant in person.

Sh.Raj Karan Singh, Adv. for OP No.1.

OP No.2 ex-parte.



PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT



Concisely put, the Complainant had taken an STD connection on 26.10.2006 from OP No. 2, who was an authorized dealer of OP No. 1 and deposited Rs.3500/- (Rs.550/- as refundable security + Rs.1200/- as recharge and Rs.1800/- for bill machine/ printer). He was assured that the security would be refunded within one month after depositing the equipment. It was averred that the connection was disconnected on 9.10.2007 and the equipment was also deposited on the same day. It was alleged that even after one month when the refund was not made, he approached the OPs number of times with a request to refund the security, which they lingered on, on one pretext or the other. Finally, instead of Rs.500/-, an amount of Rs.220/- was refunded to him on 31.10.2008, without assigning any reason. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2] Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs, but inspite of due service, none turned up on behalf of OP No. 2 and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

3] OP No. 1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that as per the equipment return note dated 9.10.2007, the Complainant returned the equipment, charger and handset to their distributor (OP No. 2), but OP No.1 had only received the equipment and handset from the Distributor and not the charger. As such, an amount of Rs.280/- was deducted towards cost of Charger and Rs.220/- was refunded to the Complainant out of refundable security of Rs.500/-. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

3]-A Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4] We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for OP No. 1 and have also perused the record.



5] Annexure C-2 is the receipt dated 9.10.07, vide which the complainant returned the handset and a charger both in good condition to the AGM Communication Private Limited (OP-2). These instruments were to be passed on by OP-2 to OP-1, upon which the OP-1 was to release security amount of Rs.500/- to the complainant. OP-2, however, did not deposit the charger with OP-1, due to which OP-1 deducted an amount of Rs.280/- on account of the price of the charger and refunded to the complainant Rs.220/- only. Since the complainant has already deposited the charger with OP-2, the full amount of Rs.500/- was to be refunded to the complainant. The entire dispute therefore arose due to the fault of OP-2, who has not come forward to contest this complaint despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte.

6] We are of the opinion that the present complaint succeeds. The same is accordingly allowed. OP-2 is directed to pay the amount of Rs.280/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, since 9.10.07, till the amount is paid alongwith litigation cost of Rs.1,100/-. If the amount is not paid within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, the entire amount would carry penal interest @ 12% per annum, since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 4.09.09, till the amount is paid to the complainant.



Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

C.C.No.62 of 2008

BETWEEN:

K. Naga Malleswara Rao

S/o. Sambaiah,

R/o. D.No. 5-458-A,

Ground Floor,

Kummari Bazaar,

Weavers Colony Backside,

Mangalagiri village and Mandal,

Guntur District. ...Complainant

And

1) Pioneer Teleservices,

Rep.by its Manager,

D.No. 10-1-28,

Station Road,

Naaz Centre, Guntur.



2) Tata Teleserviçes

Rep.by its Manger,

D.No. 5-9-62,

Khan Building,

Fateh Maidan Road,

Hyderabad-500001. ... Opposite Parties.

This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 07-12-09 in the presence of Sri P.V.S. Kumar, Advocate for complainant and of Sri P.Kishore, Advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:


O R D E R

Per Sri T. ANJANEYULU, PRESIDENT:

This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant against opposite parties claiming damages of Rs.30,000/- for mental agony apart from Rs.65,000/- as compensation towards professional and personal loss suffered by complainant and legal expenses.

The facts of case in brief are as follows:- The case of complainant is that 1st opposite party is the franchisee and authorized business associate of 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is the circle office to Tata Tele Services Ltd., which has registered office at New Delhi and which is doing business in Telephone and mobile services to the needy people.

The complainant is the subscriber to 2nd opposite party through 1st opposite party and availed telephone services. On 18-12-07, complainant became subscriber under application No. AP00324822 and Customer A/c No.208597273 in 2nd opposite party’s company through the executive of 1st opposite party by name V. Srinivasulu by paying initial deposit of Rs.1199-00 for which ‘Mobile’ and ‘Walky’ instruments are provided with. The complainant’s mobile number is 9246516277 and Walky number is 9247016277. The offer is post paid basis. The complainant has to pay bill after availing services. The bill includes rental charges, used charges and service charges etc.

The 2nd opposite party charged Rs.525/- for the period 18-12-07 to 04-01-08 and Rs.1314.18 for the period 05-01-08 to 04-O2-O8 towards amount due and complainant paid bills without any dispute. But 2nd opposite party charged Rs.4,540-00 for the period 05-02-08 to 04-03-08 which is payable on or before 24-03-08 to 1st opposite party. Astonished with the bill, on enquiry about the calls made to others, complainant surprisingly came to know that most of the calls made are fake, false and fictitious. On submission of errors, the executives of 1st opposite party revealed the fact that telephone/mobile numbers showing in the bill as outgoing calls, jumped, high jacked from other mobile/telephones to mobile/walky and they assured complainant to rectify the problem very soon. But as promised by the executives of 1st opposite party did not rectify the bill. Moreover, they disconnected/inactivated Mobile and Walky services on 27-02-08 by saying that the Credit of Rs.3,750-00 was already availed off and demanded Rs.1,000/- towards security deposit for restoration of activation of mobile. The complainant requested for reactivation of mobile and walky without paying security deposit as the out going calls he made were fake and fictitious as such the bill exceeds the credit limit. The complainant also assured 1st opposite party that on providing outgoing calls he made to others to be genuine, the security deposit will be paid without any bargaining, remission or concession. But the management of 1st opposite party made a deaf ear and demanded for payment of Rs.1000/-. Having no other go, complainant paid Rs.1,000/- on 29-02-08 and demanded for reactivation of mobile and walky. The officials of 1st opposite party assured for reactivation of the same within 30 minutes of payment. But as promised by, the 1st opposite party did not reactivate upto 5 p.m on 12-03-08. On questioning about genuineness of bill, the opposite parties did not make proper and reasonable reply/explanation and they demanded complainant the total bill to be paid. Hence it is clear that knowing that bill to be defective and excessive, the opposite parties evading to check it and correct the bill amount, which amounts to deficiency of service under Consumer Protection Act. Similarly, even after paying the amount of Rs.1,000/- towards security deposit the opposite parties did not revive or reactivated the connection of Mobile and Walky from 27-02-08 to 12-03-08, which is also amounts to deficiency of service under Consumer Protection Act.

The complainant submit that due to adamant, highhanded behavior of opposite parties, the complainant vexed with and a great professional and personal loss was occasioned to him. The complainant is professional and doing marriage consultancy services network throughout Andhra Pradesh and a huge damage was caused to his business, goodwill and reputation due to disconnection of Mobile and Walky and also due to defective, excessive bill supplied by opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.

The 2nd opposite party has filed its version which is adopted by 1st opposite party. Formally it denied the allegations made in the complaint. It is claimed that it has been licensed by Government of India through Department of Telecommunication (DoT) to establish, maintain and operate basic telephone services and other value added services in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The complainant herein has approached opposite party and applied for a telephone connection. Before providing services, the Opposite party is duty bound to verify about credentials and it has right to provide services based on verification.

After submission of Customer Application Form as per Company norms and as per terms & conditions, the connection to customer can be provided only after due credit verification. The connection numbers 9246516277 and 9247016277 were provided. The lines were activated on 2O/12/07 and complainant was using services effectively. Due to system error excess billing was reflected in the bills. The opposite party duly attended to the concerns and immediately gave required adjustments to complainant. The bill dated 7.4.2008 enclosed to substantiate the same.

It is submitted that at the time of filing the compliant there was no cause of action since necessary adjustments were given to complainant. In fact after giving due adjustments, the complainant still has not paid outstanding amount, due to which the connection is currently under temporary suspension. In order to avoid payments complainant has filed this complaint without a cause of action.

The allegation of complainant that Opposite Parties have made wrong billing is hereby denied. Further required due adjustments were given to complainant and infact currently there is an outstanding amount in his account. The allegation that the complainant has been put to lot of inconvenience and mental agony is false and incorrect. The complainant is put to strict proof of said allegation and the same is denied. The complainant is not entitled for any relief much less Rs.1,00,000/- claimed towards damages and costs. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Both sides have filed their respective affidavits. The complainant relied upon Exs.A1 to A4.

Now the points for determination are that

1. Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service as alleged by complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for amounts claimed towards damages, business loss and mental agony, pain and suffering?
3. To what relief?

POINT No.1:- The complainant has availed the telephone services from opposite parties both Mobile and walky on making initial deposit of Rs.1199/- and utilizing the services from 18-12-07. He has received the 1st bill for Rs.525/- for the period from 18-12-07 to 04-01-08 which is indicated in Ex.A-2 as a previous balance under his account No.208597273 vide bill No.476399401 for the period from 05-01-08 to 04-02-08 by bill dated 07-02-08 (Ex.A-2). He has received bill for a sum of Rs.1314.18ps. Accordingly, complainant has paid both the bills. The complainants grievance is that the bill dated 07-03-08 for the period from 05-02-08 to 04-03-08 an amount of Rs.4540/- charged which is quiet excessive and he was astonished by seeking the said bill vide Ex.A-3 and made enquiries with the department. At that time came to know that the telephone/mobile numbers shown in the bills as outgoing calls, jumped, hijacked from other mobile/telephones to the mobile/walky of complainant and he was assured to rectify the problem soon. But as promised, the executives of 1st opposite party did not rectify the bill and they disconnected the same on 27-02-08 stating that the credit limit of Rs.3750/- was already availed off and further demanded Rs.1,000/- towards security deposit for restoration of mobile. The complainant made a request for reactivation of his mobile and walky without paying security deposit as admittedly out going calls were fake and fictitious and jumped from other mobile phones in his bill. He also gave assurance that on proving that out going calls he made to others are genuine, he would deposit the security amount of Rs.1,000/- as demanded. But the department did not heed to his requests and there was no other go he made payment of Rs.1,000/- on 29-02-08, even then the telephone connection was not restored until 5 pm on 12-03-08. Therefore, this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. On this account he claims damages of Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and Rs.65,000/- towards professional and personal loss suffered by him apart from legal expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

The opposite party in their version makes it clear that due to system error inflated bills were generated and department has rectified the bills and required adjustments were given to complainant. It is submitted that the bill dated 07-04-08 is also enclosed along with version but the same is not found. Thus, we are unable to find out as to how much amount out of the bill dated 07-03-08 was given adjustment due to system error. It is not born out by record.

All the bills vide Ex.A-2 to A-5 filed by complainant do reflect that his credit limit is Rs.3750/-. It appears that opposite parties have adjusted this credit limit against the sum of Rs.4540/- generated in the bill dated 07-03-08 vide Ex.A-3 and further demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards security amount and also taken steps to disconnect the services on 27-02-08 itself. The complainant was compelled to pay sum of Rs.1,000/- on 29-02-08 vide Ex.A-4 in the circumstances explained by him but even then there was no restoration of his services as demanded. It is put forth by him that there was no service connection in between the period from 27-02-08 to 12-03-08 for a period of 14 days due to which he suffered business loss, goodwill and reputation. It is claimed that he is engaged in doing marriage consultancy services and this caused any amount of inconvenience for want of telephone connection. The learned counsel for opposite parties have pointed out that there was temporary suspension from 03-03-08 till 04-03-08 for which sum of Rs.27.16 ps is given discount as reflected in the very same bill vide Ex.A-3. But the opposite parties are silent about non giving service connection during the period from 27-02-08 to 12-03-08, when admittedly they received payment of Rs.1,000/- on 29-02-08. The above factors certainly constitute deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

Due to compulsion made on the complainant for payment of Rs.1,000/- towards security deposit basing on the bill dated 07-03-08 after showing availment of credit limit of Rs.3750/- and despite of payment of amount of Rs.1,000/- as demanded, the service connection was not restored for a period of 14 days and it would certainly cause any amount of inconvenience and also affect routine course of business apart from causing mental agony, pain and suffering. Therefore, the complaint is entitled to reasonable amount of compensation. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case we feel it reasonable to fix a sum of Rs.6,000/- in all towards compensation. Accordingly, we allow the same.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are hereby directed to make payment of Rs.6000/- towards compensation to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of litigation.
3. Rest of the claim of complainant is dismissed.

4. The aforesaid amounts shall be adjusted in future consumption bills of complainant or alternatively to pay the said sum directly to him within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization.