BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 29th day of July, 2005
CD.No 32/2005
P.Malikarjuna, S/o Akkulappa,
Door No.14/36, Shareen Nagar, Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
- Director, Bharti Mobile Limited,
1-8-437, 438, 364 and 445, Opp.Begumpet Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad.
- Manager, Airtel Office,
Central Plaza, Ravi Theatre, Kurnool-2.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 21.07.2005 for arguments in the presence of Smt.Rafat, Advocate for complainant and Sri.A.Anil Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri K.V.H. Prasad, President)
CC/32/2005
1. This consumer disputes case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- and other reliefs entitled in the exigencies of this case alleging deficiency of service of the opposite party in disconnecting the Mobile Airtel Connection without any notice.
2. The brief facts of the case averred in complaint are that the complainant was subscriber of Airtel SIM Card bearing No.89914900040018688284 with Mobile No.9844224808 with corresponding account No.104-100252877 under plan Airtel freedom 99 ecastracy, obtaining the connection on 14-06-2004 from the opposite party No.2 paying Rs.500/- and furnishing necessary documentary proof as to residence etc. But the said service was disconnected by the opposite party without any prior notice in about 5 days thereafter i.e., on 19-06-2004, and sent bills of consumption for the months of June to September, 2004. The said act of opposite party not only caused heavy loss, as the new cell phone purchased at Rs.3,500/- became useless but also ensured mental agony and deficiency of service. The notice of the complainant was not properly respondent.
3. The opposite party No.1 caused its appearance in pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to the case of the complainant and contested the case denying any of its liability which the other opposite party remained exparte tot eh proceedings.
4. The written version of the opposite party No.1, even though admit the status of the complainant as subscriber to the said Airtel Mobile but deny any of its deficiency of service and there by any of its liability for the claim alleging the commencement of the said Airtel Phone Service to the complainant since 12-07-2004 as on that day the complainant signed subscriber enrollment from and completed other formalities. As per the regulation of telecom Regulatory Authority of India and department of Telecommunication the subscriber has to furnish sufficient address proof and photo identity and on that only the service will be continued. The complainant as has not fulfilled the said requirement of furnishing correct address in-spite of time given for it for 10 days and remainder by phone and several SMS till 20-07-2004 the complainant was informed ultimately the suspension of service even though the opposite party is having the right to disconnect the same without any prior intimation or notice in the said set of circumstances. The bills for consumption period as has been issued, it denies of any irregularity in its conduct. The alleged suffering of the complainant being originated on his defaultive conduct, the opposite party disowns any liability and deficiency of service and seeks dismissal of complainant with costs.
5. While the complainant side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and sworn affidavit in reiteration of its case and interrogatories and replies exchanged, the opposite parties takes reliance on the documentary record in Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 and sworn affidavit of the opposite party and interrogatories and replies exchanged in between them.
6. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and there by the latter’s liability to make good of the complainants claim.
7. While the complainant has not placed any cogent material as to the commencement of the said Mobile Airtel Cell Phone service from 14-06-2004, the Ex.B1 Subscriber Enrollment Forum submitted by complainant to the opposite party for having said Cell Phone facility, says the commencement of said service to the complainant from 12-07-2004 on ward on receipt of Rs.500/- as deposit from the complainant. The said fact envisaged by Ex.B1 as was not rebutted by complainant side, the privy of consumer and provider of service in between the complainant and the opposite party was commencing from 12-07-2004 only and not from 14-06-2004 as alleged by the complainant.
8. While the Ex.A1 legal notice of the complainant caused to the opposite party alleges the disconnection of said facility provided to him without any prior intimation and reasons the Ex.A2 the reply of the opposite party alleges the reasons for said suspension of service as the complainant has not providing correct address for billing i.e., non submission of address proof and the diligent steps it has taken requiring the complainant to furnishing the same and the non compliance of said requirement by complainant caused disconnection of service as per rules. While the Ex.B1 and Ex.A1 allege the address of the complainant as P.Mallikarjuna, S/o P.Ankalappa, H.no.14/36, Shareen Nagar, Kurnool-518002 and official address as Government Hospital, Kurnool the cause title of the complainant says the residence of the complainant at Sareen Nagar and so the opposite party submit there is variance of address of residential locality and the complainant as not furnished clear address the resorting to the No.8 of terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.B1 became compulsory for causing disconnection. The correct address is required for communicating the demanding bills of consumption as the nature of connection given to the complainant was a post paid one. But the opposite parties has not placed any cogent material to believe the complainant was contacted by it through SMS and Phone calls for fulfilling in the needed requirement or otherwise even to the affect that with the said particulars of insufficient address of the complainant it could not be able to contact the complainant and in the circumstance of non compliance of mandatory requirements by complainant it has been left with no other alternative than to suspend or terminate the service connection to the complainant Mobile Phone. While such is so the bills of demand in Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 (Ex.A3 and Ex.A4) were said to have been received by the complainant. When there is really any incorrectness in the furnished address the said bills would not have reach the complainant if sent by post especially when there is any cogent material to believe the said bills were personally collected by the complainant or personal served on him on any substantial efforts of the opposite party. Hence is the said circumstances the resort to the terms and conditions No.8 of Ex.B1 shall not be available to the opposite party and such an exercise of powers without any congenial circumstances for its approach amounts to doing excess and the said excuse remains as a mere excuse without any substantial merit and force. Therefore causing of disconnection of the service in unwarranted circumstances and without any sufficient cause amounts to deficiency of service especially when the said service disconnection was not attributed for non-payment of any outstanding dues.
9. Consequently, in the result of the above discussion, as the opposite parties are found of causing of deficiency of service to the complainant by their indiscriminate behavior and conduct of disconnecting the service to the mobile Phone of the complainant, to his mental agony the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs within a month of the receipt of this order.
Dictation to the Stenographer Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 29th day of July, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for complainant:-
Ex.A1 Legal notice addressed to Bharthi Mobil Limited, Hyderabad, dated 03-09-2004.
Ex.A2 Reply letter to Ex.A1 addressed to Mrs.Rafat, Advocate, Notary, Kurnool dated 08-09-2004.
Ex.A3 Airtel monthly bill No.192257188, Mobile No.9844224308 period from 17-06-2004 to 16-07-2004, dated 16-07-2004, due amount of Rs.180.22ps.
Ex.A4 Airtel monthly bill No.203757667, dated 18-08-2004 Mobile No.9866224308 period from 17-07-2004 to 16-08-2007 due amount of Rs.162.50Ps.
List of Exhibits Marked for opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Subscriber enrollment Form Individual S.No.0710048, dated 12-07-2005 Local deposit of Rs.500/-.
Ex.B2 Xerox copy of monthly bill of Mr.P.Mallikarjuna A/c No.104-100252877, dated 12-07-2004 amount due of Rs.180.22Ps.
Ex.B3 Xerox copy of monthly bill of Mr.P.Mallikarjuna (Complainant) A/c No.104-100252877, dated 12-07-2004 amount due of Rs.162.50Ps.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
- Smt.Rafat, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri.A.Anil Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
- Manager, opposite party No.2
Airtel Office,
Central Plaza,
Ravi Theatre,
Kurnool-518002.
Copy was made on ready :
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was delivered to parties :
