| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD. FA No. 75 OF 2015 AGAINST CC No.283 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM- RANGA REDDY Between: Pachunoori Sudhakar, S/o. Pochunoori Sambaiah, Aged 55 years, Occ: Employed at MNC, R/o. H.No. 1-3-183/26/27/40/41, 201, Solitaire Residency, P & T Colony, Gandhinagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad Telangana, India – 500080. ….Appellant /Complainant AND : Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director 7, Khullar Farms, Mandi Road, Meharuli, New Delhi – 110030. Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its General Manager, 1-10/4, 1-10/4A, 1-10/4/B & 1-90 3rd Floor Oyster Uptown, Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad – 500081. … Respondents / Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant /Complainant : Sri Pachunoori Sudhakar,(PIP) Counsel for the Respondents / Opposite Parties : M/s.G.Nagesh Reddy Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President & Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member , Wednesday, the Twelth day of April Two thousand Seventeen Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member). *** Having aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2015 in C.C.no.283/2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum (for short, “the District Forum”) Ranga Reddy the complainant in it has preferred the present appeal claiming refund of a sum of Rs.1,74,000/- with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-and costs against the Opposite Parties. By the aforesaid order the District Forum dismissed his claim. 2. The material facts, in brief, as set up by the Complainant before the District Forum are that he has purchased Student International Telephone Line with SIM Card and phone services in the name of his son Mr. Makarananad Pachunoori in the month of August, 2011 from Matrix Cellular [International ] Services Pvt. Ltd., but the services were stopped abruptly from 17.07.2013. On enquiry he came to know that the line was disconnected for nonpayment of pending bill of Rs.1,90,461-60 ps. Infact, all the bills were already cleared by the Complainant. The further case of the Complainant is that despite his making of enquiries into the matter, there was no proper response from the officials of the Opposite Parties and that vexed with their attitude he requested them to disconnect the service line on 24.08.2013. However, on 13.09.2013 Mr. Tarun Sharma, official of the Opposite Parties promised to settle the bill for Rs.1,74,000/- payable in two installments. Accordingly, the Complainant issued two cheques for the said sum and the same were duly encashed by the Opposite Parties. But even then again on 23.09.2013 the Complainant received a SMS with demand of Rs.2,68,306/- and that on enquiry, Mr. Tarun Sharma had informed that the amounts covered by the said two cheques were adjusted towards arrears up to the month of August-2013 and that still the complainant was due of Rs.1,64,844/-. As per complainant, the demand for the said amount was illegal amounting to deficiency in service. - The Opposite Parties had resisted the claim by way of filing written version on the grounds, interalia, that the complainant’s son availed mobile services with data card in USA under Tariff Code ATT 3907112 as per the terms and conditions of the Customer Agreement dated 16.08.2011 entered with the Opposite Parties and that the complainant stood as a guarantor to it. As per record, a demand was raised towards the bill dated 08.07.2013 amounting to Rs.1,84,113-83 ps., for the usage period from 02.06.2013 to 06.07.2013 and another bill dated 07.09.2013 for an amount of Rs.1,64,844.31 ps., for the usage period from 06.07.2013 to 13.07.2013. Thus, the total due amount was of Rs.4,42,972.19 ps., and that after adjusting the payments made by the Complainant inclusive of security amount of Rs.5,000/- the balance due was of Rs.1,76,305.91 ps. to be paid by him and that as such, as per the Opposite Parties, his claim was untenable and baseless and therefore liable to be dismissed.
- After due enquiry into the matter, the District Forum dismissed the complaint by the orders, as noted supra in para no.1, which is now impugned in the present appeal.
- The contention of the complainant in the Appeal, in brief, is that the District Forum did not appreciate the fact that the Opposite Parties without any notice have abruptly disconnected the services of mobile connectivity and ignored his repeated requests to restore the same. The District Forum has also failed to consider that despite the payments of Rs.1,74,420/- made by him towards full and final settlement the service connection was disconnected illegally amounting to deficiency in service. As per the Complainant / Appellant, the ledger copy submitted by the Opposite Parties / Respondents is improper to arrive at the alleged amount of outstanding dues. For these reasons he has prayed to set aside the impugned order by allowing the Appeal.
- Perused the material evidence placed on record, the impugned order and written arguments of the parties and heard the Appellant in person and the learned counsel for the Respondents.
- Now the point for consideration is that:
whether the impugned order is erroneous and illegal both on facts and under law and that as such liable to be set aside? - Point:- It is not in dispute that the Complainant’s son has entered into the Agreement with the Opposite Parties on 16.08.2011 and used mobile services with data card in USA under Tarif Code ATT 3907112 till 17.07.2013. The Complainant stood as a guarantor for the said agreement, vide Ex.B3. On 17.07.2013 the Opposite Parties disconnected the services for non – payment of pending bill amounting to Rs.4,42,972.19 ps.
- As per the Complainant all the bills up to 25.06.2013 were paid through cheques and that there was no any due and that even then the Opposite Parties withdrew the mobile services on 21.07.2013 illegally. He has further alleged that as the Opposite Parties did not agree for the said payment but demanded further amounts, the matter was mutually settled for a sum of Rs.1,74,000/- and that the complainant accordingly paid the same through two cheques and the same were encashed by the Opposite Parties. He has also alleged that despite said fact the Opposite Parties demanded further sum of Rs.2,68,306/- on the premise that the system generated a new bill dated 06.09.2013 for Rs.1,64,844/-.31 ps., for the period of usage not covered by the amount remitted by the Complainant through the above said two cheques. Per contra, the Opposite Parties have pro-pounded that the Complainant had suppressed the usage period of 06.07.2013 to 13.07.2013 for the due amount of Rs.1,64,844/- under the bill dated 07.09.2013 vide Ex.B6 while negotiating and that the bill dated 08.07.2013 under Ex.B5 was raised for a sum of Rs.1,84,113.83 ps., for the usage period of 02.06.2013 to 06.07.2013 and that thus the total amount payable by the Complainant was of Rs.4,42,922.90 ps., and that after adjusting the amount paid by the Complainant through the cheques inclusive of the security amount of Rs.5,000/- the balance due was of Rs.1,76,305.91 ps. They have also contended that there was some delay in generating the bill dated 07.09.2013, EX.B6 and that as such it could not be brought to the notice of the Complainant at the time of the settlement. The Opposite Parties have filed a copy of Account Ledger vide Ex.B4 for the amount claimed by them. The Complainant has challenged the entries therein. This is the only crux of the dispute. In this regard it is to be noted that this being a Consumer dispute which has to be tried summarily but not by way of a full-fledged trial unlike a Civil Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Trai Foods Ltd., Vs. National Insurance Company AND Others,2013 (3) CPJ-17 held that having regard to the nature of the claim, the large amount of damages claimed and the extensive enquiry into the evidence involving legal issue it would be necessary in order to resolve the dispute between the parties through Civil Court but not summarily under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. By applying the said legal proposition, in our considered opinion, the learned District Forum has rightly held that the parties have to approach a Civil Court to get the matter settled. Even otherwise the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, in his written arguments, has noted that a Civil Suit in O.S.NO.1890/2015 was pending on the file of the Vth Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad for recovery of Rs.1,76,305/- between the parties herein. The Complainant didn’t dispute it. It is pertinent to note that the said disputed amount is the claim in controversy in the present litigation. It is also settled principle of law that a finding of Civil Court is binding on Consumer Fora but not vice-versa. Having regard to this aspect in our view the claim of the Complainant under the Act, 1986 is not maintainable.
- It is to be noted that as per the Complainant, he has paid a sum of Rs.1,74,000/- to the Opposite Parties towards full and final settlement. Despite said fact surprisingly he seeks refund of the said amount which is absurd. He has also suppressed the pendency of the above noted Civil Suit in the present appeal and thus didn’t approach this Commission with clean hands.
- We have given careful consideration to the impugned order. The learned District Forum, in our opinion, has appreciated all the material facts and the evidence placed on record by both the parties in a right perspective and came to a just conclusion with sound reasoning. Therefore, the same needs no interference. In this view of the matter we hold that the appeal is devoid of merits and that as such liable to be dismissed.
- The point is answered accordingly against the Appellant.
- In the result, the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dt.12.04.2017 | |
