BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; HISAR.
C.C.No.17/2006
Date of Instt. 10.1.2006
Date of Decision: 1.1.2009
Kailash Aggarwal son of Shri Chuni Lala, C/o Aggarwal Colour Lab, Tilak Bazar, Hisar.
..Complainant
Versus
Tata Tele Services limited having its registered office at Jiwan Bharti, Tower-I, 10th Floor, 124- Connaught Circus, New Delhi though its authorized signatory, SCO No.170, Red Square Market, Railway Road, Hisar.
..Respondent
QUORUM; SH.R.P.KAUSHIK; PRESIDENT
SH.PYARE LAL CHAUHAN; MEMBER
SMT. KRISHNA KANTA; MEMBER
Present: Mr. Vishal Sethi as proxy counsel for the complainant
Mr. Rajesh Punia, counsel for the respondent
ORDER
AS PER PRESIDENT SH.R.P.KAUSHIK:
Kailash Aggarwal-Complainant filed the present complaint under Section-12 of the Consumer protection Act against the respondent averring that he is the consumer of the respondent and has taken a Mobile Connection No.92155-64001 and he has taken another Mobile connection No.92157-20001. and he requested the respondent to close the mobile connection No.92155-64001 and he has been paying the dues of mobile connection NO.92155-64001 and paid a sum of Rs.500/- to the respondent vide receipt No.439097 on 24.10.2005 and has requested the respondent to adjust the security paid by the complainant towards the remaining bill and to refund the excess amount and it is pertinent to mention here that the last bill NO.129781255 dated 7.10.2005 in respect of this mobile No. was Rs.803/- only, therefore, the complainant is entitled to a refund of Rs.197/- after adjusting the security amount of Rs.500/- and so far as the bill of mobile connection NO.92157-20001 is concerned, it is submitted that nothing is due towards the complainant in this account and he has paid a sum of Rs.1140/- on 19.11.2005 to the respondent at Hisar against the bill dated 7.11.2005 of Rs.1142/- and further averred that credit limit of the complainant in Mobile connection NO.92157-20001 is Rs.2000/- which means that this mobile connection cannot be disconnected by the respondent till the dues are not in excess of Rs.2000/-. Inspite of this, the mobile connection NO.92157-20001 was disconnected on 28.12.2005 without any notice and when the complainant approached the branch office of the respondent at Hisar and requested the Branch Manager of the respondent to restore the service of the mobile but the respondent refused to do so without any reason and stated that this caused great physical and mental agony to the complainant and claimed restoration of the mobile connection No.92157-20001 and further claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10000/- and filed his affidavit to prove the assertions made in the complaint and further tendered in his evidence Bill payment receipt annexure C-1, bill annexure C-2, call detail annexure C-3, receipt annexure C-4, bill annexure C-5, call detail annexure C-6, bill annexure C-7, receipt annexure C-8, bill annexure C-9, call detail annexure C-10, receipt annexure C-11, bill annexure C-12 , call detail annexure C-13 and bill annexure C-14.
On notice, respondent appeared through its counsel Shri Rajesh Punia and filed the written statement by taking various preliminary objections and further averred that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and he was not regularly paying the bill in respect of mobile Phone NO.92155-64001 and bill of Rs.803/- was raised for the billing period 5.9.2005 to 4.10.2005 and the complainant only deposited a sum of Rs.500/- and thereafter another bill of Rs.928/- was raised upon the complainant for the billing period 5.10.2005 to 4.11.2005 but he did not pay a single penny of this bill. On account of non-payment of bill, the telephone connection was temporary suspended and even today a sum of Rs.459/- is outstanding towards the mobile connection NO.92155-64001 and further stated that complainant has claimed exaggerated amount on account of compensation without giving any incident of the loss suffered by the complainant and further stated that complainant never requested for disconnection of mobile NO. 92155-64001 and it was disconnected due to non payment and a sum of Rs.459/- is still due towards the connection NO.92155-64001 and further stated that credit limit provided on a particular connection does not mean that the Subscriber can continue to make use of telephone without making payment. In fact, the complainant was availing two Mobile connections i.e. 92155-64001 and 92157-20001 and on Mobile no.92155-64001 the outstanding amount as per bill dated 7.11.2005 was Rs.928/- and the said amount was not paid by the complainant and on the Mobile connection NO.92157-20001 the usage was very high and the complainant was not making the payment and on account of non-payment of bill in respect of Mobile NO.92155-64001 the connection was temporarily suspended on mobile No.92157-20001 under the Fraud Management System. Despite the fact that complainant had to pay outstanding amount, services were restored on Del NO.92157-20001 and the complainant is continuously availing the services on this Del and prayed that complaint be dismissed with costs and tendered affidavit of Shri Abhishek Srivastava to prove the assertions made in the written statement and further tendered in his evidence bill annexure R-1 for the period from 5.9.2005 to 4.10.2005, bill from 5.10.2005 to 4.11.2005 annexure R0-2, duplicate bill annexure R-3.
Arguments were heard with the help of learned counsel for both the parties.
While arguing complainant’s counsel re-asserted all the facts mentioned in the complaint and contended that he was having two mobile connection NO.92155-64001 and 92157-20001 and complainant has requested the respondent to close the mobile connection no.92155-64001 and he has deposited a sum of Rs.500/- vide receipt NO.439097 dated 24.10.2005 and adjust the security towards the bill and total amount of the bill was Rs.803/- and security amount was Rs.500/-. IN this manner, the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.197/- and there was nothing due towards mobile connection No.92157-20001 and he has paid a sum of Rs.1140/- on 19.11.2005 towards bill dated 7.11.2005 of Rs.1142/- and respondent has disconnected the mobile connection NO.92157-20001 without any notice; whereas the credit limit of the complainant towards the connection was Rs.2000/- and complainant’s counsel has drawn our attention towards receipt annexure C-1 dated 19.11.2005 vide which he deposited Rs.1140/- and annexure C-2- bill dated 7.11.2005 whereas credit limit has been shown as Rs.2000/-. While arguing respondent’s counsel re-asserted all the facts mentioned in the written statement and argued that false and frivolous compliant has been filed by the complainant and he was not paying the bills regularly of the mobile phone NO.92155-640001 and bill of Rs.803/- was raised for the billing period 5.9.2005 to 4.10.2005 wheras the complainant deposited only Rs.500/- and another bill of Rs.928/- was raised for the period 5.10.2005 to 4.11.2005 but the complainant did not pay single penny on account of the bill and Rs.450/- is still due towards the mobile connection No.92155-64001 towards this bill after adjusting the security. So, there is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the respondent and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record placed on the case file.
This fact is admitted that there is relationship of Consumer and Service provider between the parties. This fact is also clear that complainant was having two connections. This fact is also admitted that connection NO.92155-20001 was disconnected by the respondent without any notice. Now the question to be determined by this Forum is whether respondent had right to disconnect the connection or not and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of respondent or not?. This fact is proved that there was no amount due towards the connection NO.92155-20001 although there is different contentions on the part of the parties; whereas claim of the complainant is that complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.197/- from the respondent; whereas the claim of the respondent is that a sum of Rs.459/- is due towards the complainant. But this fact is admitted that there was a credit limit of the phone No.92155-20001 of Rs.2000/- and there was nothing due towards this connection and even if for the sake of arguments it is conceded that a sum of Rs.459/- was due towards the complainant then respondent had no right to disconnect the connection of the complainant without giving any notice.
Hence, we are of the considered view that it is a clear case of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of respondent. Therefore, we allow this complaint. As the connection is already restored during he pendency of the case, so we direct the respondent to pay compensation of Rs.3300/-(Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred only) to the complainant on account of litigation expenses, mental agony and harassment etc. Compliance of this order be made within a period of one month. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as required under Sub Rule 10 Rule 4 of the Haryana Consumer protection Rules,1988. File be consigned after due compliance.
ANNOAUNCED IN OPEN FORUM R.P.KAUSHIK; PRESIDENT
ON; 1.1.2009 PYARE LAL CHAUHAN; MEMBER
KRISHNA KANTA; MEMBER