SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT: Complainant Bhagirathi Sahu has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.                                            
2. Case of the complainant in brief is that he is a consumer under the O.Ps having subscribed for a postpaid Sim with the assurance that village Bausenmura is under network service of the Company with internet facility. He was provided with Mobile No.9937003743 and his Customer Account number is 1021594177. As this was a postpaid service, no receipt was given by the O.P.No.4 to the complainant for the mobile connection.
    3. After purchase of the mobile Sim, complainant found that there was no network coverage in his village for which he made complaint to O.P.No.4. But O.P.No.4 took no action to improve the network connection. So, only when the complaint comes to Sambalpur, he could use his mobile. For this he was disgusted with the service and expressed his willingness to surrender his mobile/cell number to the O.Ps. O.P.No.4 calculated the user charges to be Rs.1,200/- and the complainant paid the same. He was granted with a receipt No.328551 dt.23.12.2010. O.P.No.4 wrote on the bills dt.3.12.2010 as settled account on 23.12.2010. The bill was duly stamped and signed.
    4. Complainant alleges that in the month of September, 2011, he received one Advocate notice dt.12.9.2011 on behalf of the O.Ps asking him to make payment of Rs.2,217.79 paise outstanding in his Airtel account within seven days or face criminal proceeding and suit for recovery of the amount. Complainant met O.P.No.4, who asked him to make payment of Rs.500/- once and for all time for closure of his account. In duress complainant paid Rs.500/- to O.P.No.4 vide Receipt No.361544 dt.27.9.2011, but there was no bill date on the receipt. After payment the Complainant was issued with a final settlement (no dues) letter dt.17.10.2011 signed by the Company Executive namely Rajiv Kumar Guru. 
    5. Further allegation of the complainant is that again he received a notice dt.9.11.2011 from the Court of Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat, Bhubaneswar vide Pre-Litigation Dispute No.86/2011 filed by Bharati Airtel Ltd. Against the complainant claiming outstanding dues of Rs.2,217.79 paise for use of air time for his mobile No.9937003743 having Airtel Account ID No.1021594177. As Bhubaneswar court did not have jurisdiction, complainant did not appear before the court. Again complainant approached the O.P.No.4 on this matter, who could not give any satisfactory answer regarding the notice from the court and only asked the complainant to ignore the notice.
    6.The complainant apprehended that in spite of all payments made by him the Airtel account has not been closed and he may face future litigations as the conduct of the O.Ps is autocratic, high handed and irresponsible and O.Ps are indulging in unfair trade practice. The O.Ps is deficient in providing service to the complainant and have given false assurance to him. Complainant has been harassed by the O.Ps and was inflicted with mental torture. On the basis of the above, complainant has filed this case and prayed to direct the O.Ps. to
                                        
    (1) Exempt the amount demanded and collected,
        (2) Pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment, physical pain and 
        suffering.
        (3) Pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceeding and 
        (40 Any other relief deemed fit by the Forum.
    In order to support his case, complainant has filed Xerox copies of following documents :
    (1) Receipt No.328851 (2) Advocate’s Notice (3) Receipt No.361544 (4) Final settlement letter
    (5) Notice from Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat, Bhubaneswar.
    7. After receipt of notice, O.Ps appeared through their Advocates and filed a petition as Preliminary Issue, claiming for dismissal of the case due to non-maintainability as per Section-7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The petition was disposed of by this Forum vide order dated.23.4.2015 rejecting the claim of the O.Ps and O.Ps are directed to file their written version. The O.Ps went on filing time petitions and did not file any written version. Hence O.Ps were set ex-parte vide order dt.26.11.2015 for non-filing written version and the case was posted to 8.12.2015 for ex-parte hearing.
    8. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the complaint petition and documents filed therewith. Advocate for the complainant also filed the following decisions in order to support his case
    (1) 2009(4) CPR-58 (State C.D.R.Commission, Jammu)
    (M.A.Suherwardy Vrs.District Manager, Telecom District and Another)
    (2) AIR 2012 Delhi 94 W.P.(C) No.8285 of 2010 Dt.6.2.2012.
    9. To understand the crux of the complainant the following observations are made on the basis of the documents filed by the complainant. The receipt No.328551 dt.23.12.2010 has a mention regarding bill which is up to 3.12.2010, but the receipt No.361544 does not contain the bill date. Hence, this shows that Rs.500/- paid by the complainant is totally beyond any service given by the O.Ps . We agree that this was paid in duress. The Advocate’s notice dt.12.9.2011 demanding payment of Rs.2,217.79 paise is also beyond any comprehension. Receipt No.328551 has a mention that it is for settled account. Letter dated.17.11.2011 issued by one Rajiv Kumar Guru for Bharati Airtel Ltd., mentions that :
    This letter meant for final settlement letter
So, on what basis the demand of Rs.2,217.79 paise was made by the O.Ps through their Advocate is beyond comprehension of any legal equity.                         
    10. After settling the account the O.Ps have charged the complainant with various bills which shows that the O.Ps are resorting to high handedness and resorting to arm twisting method by issuing Advocate’s notice as well as filing a case taking advantage of their position as an organized sector bully. Finding no other alternative for getting redressal of his grievance complainant has come up to this Forum with this case for redressal of his grievance.
    11. We are supported by the observations of the Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission Jammu in the case referred to above, wherein in para-7 in the last part it has been held 
…………………..we find that the alleged excessive billing has been made in a casual and cavalry manner by violating the rules and procedure of the Telecom Department.
In para-8 the Honble State Commission has observed that 
………………their silence cannot be treated wide of mark but tacit or implied connivance in the morbid affair for allowing the Unfair Trade and Practice with the sole object of fleecing money from the gullible consumer. It is not a case of simple over billing because of technical defects, but a case of mala fide exercise of official authority for ulterior motives. In the given circumstances, no public institution would allow such a collapse in accountability………….
    12. On the basis of the above observations and applying the ratio of the above case to the present case we also acknowledged that the complainant has been saddled with fake bills which are without any basis and complainant has been harassed for long years.
    13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstance discussed above, we allow the case of the complainant and direct the O.Ps to pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand) towards compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and financial loss along with further Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) towards cost of the proceeding with one month from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the awarded amount will carry interest @ 12(Twelve) per cent per annum from the date of order till the date of payment. 
    We also observe that the O.Ps should not harass any consumer in the aforesaid manner in future.