BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, MAYURBHANJ, BARIPADA
C.C. Case No. 77 of 2006
IN THE MATTER OF
Bijay Kumar Mishra,
S/o Lokanath Mishra
WNo- 15
P.O./P.S. Baripada
Dist- Mayurbhanj
……………….. Complainant
-VRS-
1. T.D.M., B.S.N.L., Mayurbhanj
P.O./P.S. Baripada,
Dist – Mayurbhanj
………………….Opposite party
Present:
Sri H. K. Panigrahi, President
Smt. Anupama Mohanta, Member
Sri K.C. Nayak, Member
For the Complainant – Sri P.K. Rath & Associates, Advocate, Baripada
For the Opposite party– Sri Himansu Sadual, Advocate, Baripada
Date of Hearing: 24-11-09
Date of order: 21-12-09
O R D E R
Smt. Anupama Mohanta, Member
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant against the OP alleging deficiency in service.
The back ground facts disclosed in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a bonafide consumer of O.P., B.S.N.L. Mobile phone bearing no. 9437030389 and used to pay post paid charges as per the bills of O.P. from time to time. The complainant stated that he received a message from O.P. on 03.07.06 that unless outstanding amount of Rs. 1247.50 will not be paid by 05.07.06 his mobile’s incoming and outgoing facilities will be disconnected. After receipt of the message the complainant made payment of outstanding bill charges on 05.07.06. But on 07.07.06 complainant found that O.P. without any reason has cutoff the outgoing facility of his mobile phone after receiving the bill charges. On the same day 07.07.06 the complainant made complaint and on that day O.P. assured him that mobile phone outgoing facility has been wrongly disconnected and it will be connected by on the very day i.e. on 07.07.06. Further complainant alleged that O.P. did not restore the outgoing facility on 07.07.06 till 10.07.06. On 10.07.06 at about 3PM again made complaint and on several request O.P. restored the outgoing facility of his mobile phone on 11.07.06 at about 1PM. Due to such illegal disconnection made from 07.07.06 to 11.07.06 at 1PM by O.P. caused mental agony & harassment and complainant therefore filed this complaint u/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 and seeking direction to O.P. to pay Rs. 9,500/- towards compensation including ( loss of business, loss of prestige and reputation, mental agony and tension and cost of the litigation).
The O.P. on the other hand resisted the complaint and contested the claim. The O.P. admitted about the B.S.N.L cellular connection phone bearing no 9437030389 as well as payment on dt. 05.07.06. The O.P. submitted that complainant is a habitual defaulter in making payment of charges and has not been paid the bill charges on due date i.e. 24.06.06 against his phone for which cellular phone have been disconnected by O.P. from 06.07.06 to 07.07.07. Further averred that the allegation of complainant about the disconnection from 07.07.06 to 10.07.06 is not correct. Again mentioned in his W.V. that O.P has reconnected the outgoing facility on 07-07-06 and due to non payment in time the complainant’s mobile phone was disconnected on 06.07.06 and again 03.08.06. Again the O.P. submitted that O.P. never disconnected the mobile phone from 07-07-06 to 11-07-06 at 1PM. According to O.P. the allegation made by the complainant are baseless, false and fabricated and is not tenable in law. Further O.P. submitted that it has taken appropriate step under I.T.R. 443. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on his part and for the ends of justice complaint petition may kindly be dismissed with cost.
The complainant in support of his case relies a Xerox copy of duplicate bill marked as annexure -1 and a Xerox copy of money receipt of B.S.N.L. no. B0224785 dt. 05-07-06 marked as annexure -2. On the other hand O.P. has relied the Xerox copy of document Annexure-A (Terms and Condition of B.S.N.L. cellular connection) and annexure-B (list of all payments) and B (1) (list of product) .None of the parties have filed evidence affidavit.
It is admitted fact that complainant is a subscriber of B.S.N.L. Mobile Phone having mobile no – 9437030389. Undoubtedly therefore complainant is a consumer within the meaning of 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act 1986.
Now the question is to be decided whether the O.P. is deficient in rendering services to the complainant.
From the above and perusal of the complaint petition, written version and documents we find that allegation of complainant is that outgoing facilities of his mobile phone was disconnected by Op from 07-07-06 to 11-07-06 at 1PM. But O.P. pleaded that disconnection was made by O.P. on 06-07-06 to 07-07-06 and reconnected on 07-07-06 (in Para 4) But on perusal of the document of O.P. Annexure B(1) (listed of products) clearly shows that phone was disconnected (inactive) on 07-07-06. So the contention taken by O.P. about the disconnection and reconnection are not true. It appears from the Annexture-2 (Money receipt) that complainant has paid Rs. 1287/- towards this bill (Annexure-1) on 05-07-06, It’s payment due date was 24-06-06. But in spite of receiving the telephone bill charges on 05-07-06 (vide Annexure-2) O.P. have disconnected the outgoing facility of mobile phone of the complainant there after on 07-07-06. It is improper and unjustified. Which is amounts to deficiency in service u/s 2(1) (g) of C.P. Act 1986.
In the above facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for by him. Hence it is ordered.
O R D E R
The complaint be and same is allowed on contest against O.P.. O.P is directed to pay compensation of Rs 300/-(Three hundred) only to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant for deficiency in service as well as to pay Rs.200/-(Two hundred) only towards cost of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Order pronounced in the open forum on this 21st day of December 2009 under my hand and seal of this forum.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sri K.C. Nayak Sri H.K. Panigrahi Smt.Anupama Mohanta
Member President Member
D.C.D.R.Forum, Mbj, Bpd D.C.D.R.Forum, Mbj, Bpd D.C.D.R.Forum, Mbj, Bpd