1. This appeal challenges the order dated 27/10/2009, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, partly allowing the Consumer complaint bearing No. 650 of 2008 and thereby imposing Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical harassment on the OP to be paid to the complainant after declaring the OP to have rendered deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice. The Forum further allowed Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of proceedings.
2. Respondent Prabhubhai Rathod to be referred as complainant and appellant Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. as OP for the sake of brevity.
3. The facts in brief as laid down by the complainant in the Consumer complaint are as under;

The complainant had subscribed ‘Talk Large’ plan for mobile phone services from the OP on 27/04/2008. It is the contention of the complainant that the brochure issued for the said plan mentioned “ free 449 minute local and STD call’ It also mentioned that the said plan carried gifts of Silver coins and dinner set in addition to the aforesaid free talk time. For the said offer, the OP had captioned the plan as “Choose your talk plan. Choose your gift.” The complainant on 28/04/2008 paid Rs. 250/- towards local deposit and Rs. 250/- more towards activation charges. It is the contention of the complainant that the employees of the OP informed the complainant that the mobile number allotted to the complainant would not be activated till he paid Rs. 500/- towards allotment charges. Therefore the complainant on 30/4/2008 paid Rs. 500/- towards allotment charges. The OP on receipt of the same assured the complainant that the allotted number would be immediately activated without any further verification. However the OP failed to activate the number on 1/5/2008 and the said number was only activated on 2/5/2008. The OP activated only the local and STD calls and not the ISD calls. On 12/05/2008, the said service was also suspended. On enquiry with the OP the complainant was informed that there was some technical problem and the mobile service would be restored soon. The said service was never restored as assured. Therefore alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the OP had also failed to give the free gifts to the complainant as offered by it, filed a Consumer complaint claiming Rs. 7,525/- towards cost incurred with 15 percent interest to be imposed thereon, Rs. 1,500/- towards notice charges incurred by the complainant, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- more towards cost of proceedings.

1. The OP resisted the complaint by filing its written version and denied all the adverse allegation of the complainant and specifically submitted that the services were suspended because the complainant was a willful defaulter as he failed to pay the amount of Rs. 1443/- towards the bill which was still outstanding. The OP has further submitted that the gift afford on a particular plan was a scheme floated by the dealer. The said scheme is subject to credit verification and clearance of the first bill. The opponent has further submitted that the complainant was given credit limit of Rs. 500/- and the ISD calls were activated on 12/5/2008 which were consumed by the complainant and  he failed to pay the charges in spite of reminder  being sent to him by letter dated 1/7/2008. The mobile services rightly suspended, The OP had not rendered any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed being frivolous.
2. The Forum partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid. The Forum has held that though the OP has filed the copy of the letter dated 1/7/2008 which reflects the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,443/- and the call details of the period 3/6/2008 to 30/6/2008, it cannot be accepted as it does not bear any signature. The Forum has further held that though the complainant has failed to bring any documentary evidence in support of the relief claimed. The OP suspending the mobile service within a short span of 10 to 12 days without any reason entitles the complainant for compensation towards mental and physical harassment.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the OP has filed this appeal and sought for quashing and setting aside the impugned order as unsustainable in law.
4. We heard counsel for the appellant and perused the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties, copy of complaint, written version and other documents filed by both the parties. On perusal of the brochure reflecting the talk time plan, it does reflect as “Choose your talk plan. Choose your gift” Get a free gift with every new Vodafone postpaid connection. – 1- Small talk plan- watch 2- Medium talk plan trolley bag 3- Large talk plan- dinner set.” At the bottom of the said brochure it also reflects as “This offer is available at Vodafone stores and applicable on select tariff plans and subject to credit verification and clearance of first bill.” In absence of any evidence brought on record by the complainant in respect of payment of bill and the OP submitting that the bill of Rs. 1,443/- is outstanding against the complainant and also giving call details in support of the said bill but the impugned order about not accepting the same and holding the OP to have adopted unfair trade practice cannot sustain in law as the bills issued are system generated and require no signature. The Forum failed to consider the same. The OP has suspended the service since the complainant had exhausted the credit limit available to him. The said credit limit of Rs. 500/- was used by the complainant within 10 to 12 days. Therefore it cannot be said that the OP rendered deficiency in service by suspending the same within a short time. The Forum on one hand observing that the complainant has failed to bring any evidence on record in support of the claim sought and imposing compensation towards mental and physical harassment renders the impugned order as unsustainable in law.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the impugned order is improper, illegal and unsustainable in law and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned order dated 27/10/2009, passed in Consumer complaint No. 650 of 2008 is quashed and set aside.
3. Consumer complaint No. 650 of 2008 stands dismissed.
4. Parties to bear their own cost.
5. Copies of this order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.