Delhi

StateCommission

A/157/2015

IDEA CELLULAR LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MRS. MADHU BAHL - Opp.Party(s)

22 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision :  22.04.2015

First Appeal No.157/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 14.01.2015 in Complaint Case No. 564/2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M-Block, Ist Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi)

       

M/s IDEA Cellular Ltd.

H-18-19, Outer Circle, Near PVR Plaza

Connaught Place, New Delhi-11001

Through its Director/Branch Head                      ……Appellant

                                                      

VERSUS

Mrs. Madhu Bahl

W/o Sh. Jagdish Chander Bahl

R/o 126 B, Pocket C

Mayur Vihar, Phase-II

Delhi-110091                                                …..Respondent

 

CORAM

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Judgment

1.         The appellant IDEA Cellular Ltd. has impugned the orders dt. 14.01.2015 passed by the District Forum- VI. Vide impugned orders the Ld. Trial Forum had awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- against the appellant and in favour of the complainant.
2.         Facts in brief are that the complainant Mrs. Madhu Bahl was enjoying a mobile connection from the appellant. Her connection was disconnected by the appellant/OP on 25.04.2011. The whole controversy revolves on the disconnection of the complainant. Complainant stated that she had made a request to the appellant/OP for MNP (Mobile Number Portability) and the contention of the appellant/OP is that the complainant had applied for voluntary disconnection.
3.         Perusal of the reply filed by the appellant in the District Forum and the appeal filed by him in this Commission shows that the appellant/OP has not placed on record any document in support of his contention that the complainant applied for voluntary disconnection. The appellant/OP has also not disclosed as to what was the mode of request made by the complainant to him. Appellant/OP has never indicated if the complainant wrote him a letter in writing or sent any e-mail or made a request on telephone. Admittedly, the complainant approached the District Forum in May, 2011. Appellant/OP ought have offered for revival of the connection in case it was a case of lack of communication or any misunderstanding. Instead of reviving the connection at the very outset, the appellant/OP continued litigating. Complainant has been facing litigation for the last four years besides the harassment she was put to. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation of Rs. 40,000/- awarded in favour of the complainant is not excessive. Appeal is hence dismissed.
4.         Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
5.         FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

(N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

                                                                               (S C Jain)

•  
•