KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 118/2010
JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2010
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT
1. Bharati Airtel Ltd.,
Regd. Office at Aravali Crescent,1,
Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasanth Kunj Phase II, New Delhi – 110 070
(Rep. by their authorized signatory
P. Jayabal Menon, working as Head – Legal & Regulatory)
2. Bharti Airtel Ltd.,
Circle Office, S.L. Avenue,
N.H. By-Pass,
Kundanoor Junction, Maradu P.O., Kochi.
(Rep. By Adv. Sri. R. Chandra Praveen & Others)
Vs
RESPONDENT
Balakrishnan Nair,
Advocate, S/o Chandu Nair,
M.P.C Complex,I.C.B Road,
Kasaragod.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. C. Krishna Kumar &others)
JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2010
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The order dated 5.1.2010 of CDRF, Kassargod in C.C. 74/2009 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. By the impugned order, they are under directions to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. They are also under directions to activate the mobile connection of the complainant and provide life time validity under the most beneficial Minimum Tariff Scheme within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the compensation amount was liable to be paid with interest at 12% from the date of complaint till payment.
The complainant who is an advocate by profession and also the president of the Kasargod Co-operative Marketing and Processing Society approached the Forum below stating that he was having a mobile connection provided by the opposite parties and on 5.1.2009, his connection was barred by preventing outgoing facilities though he had produced sufficient identity proof. It is also stated that after confirming that the identity proof and photo are with the third opposite party, the second opposite party re-activated the outgoing facilities on 27.1.2009. It is the case of the complainant that no prior intimation was given before barring the out going facility and to his surprise the incoming calls facility was also bared on 29.1.2009. The still further case of the complainant is that he was involved in a Flower Show and the mobile phone connection was essential and because of the acts of the opposite parties, he had suffered great difficulties and alleged that there was no justification for disconnecting the connection for no fault of the complainant. The complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings before the Forum below.
The second opposite party filed version stating that the complaint was not maintainable and that the complainant did not produce the necessary documents such as identity proof and photo of the complainant and it was only on 2.2.2009 that the same were received by the opposite party and thereafter the service was re-activated. Submitting that there was no deficiency in service the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of complainant as Pw1. The opposite parties produced documents which were marked as Ext. B1 to B6.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/opposite parties vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had traversed its jurisdiction by entertaining the complainant because it was the consistent case of the opposite parties that the complainant was not maintainable before the Forum below. He has also relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishna & another [III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC)] and the government circulars marked as B1 and B2. He has argued before us that based on the above, no complaint against a Telecom Service provider will not lie before the Consumer Forum and as per the decision only the authority(Arbitrator) appointed under section 7 B of Telegraph Act, can decide on matters relating to Telegraph lines apparatus etc. He has also argued before us that the Madhyapradesh State Consumer Commission has also taken the view that any dispute coming within the purview Section. 7(B) can not be adjudged against the Reliance Telegraphic Ltd., which is a private telegraphic service provider. On merits also it is his very case that the opposite parties were justified in disconnecting the outgoing and incoming calls of the complainant for non production of identity proof and address proof. He has submitted before us that as soon as the above documents were produced by the complainant, his service was re-connected and the opposite parties cannot be fastened with any liability as there was no deficiency of service on their part. The quantum of compensation awarded is also attacked by the learned counsel on the ground that the complainant had not adduced any evidence to support his case that he had suffered agony and damages which would warrant an award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.
On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties with the complainant was provided with a mobile phone connection by the opposite parties. The complainant/respondent would argue that he had provided proof of identity and also a photo at the time of availing the connection and at no point of time he was served with any intimation directing him to produce any identity proof or address proof before curtailing the outgoing facility. On the other hand the learned counsel for the appellants has argued before us that it was due to the non production of the said items that the outgoing facility was disconnected and as soon as the proof of identity and address were furnished, the connection was re-activated on 2.2.2009. However the argument of the appellants that the complaint was not maintainable has been extensively discussed by the Forum below and we do not find any reasons to interfere with the said findings and conclusions of the Forum below. Hence the case of the appellants/opposite parties that the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum below can not be upheld.
The learned counsel for the appellants has also disputed the quantum of compensation on the ground that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to support his case. We find that the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he was also subjected to cross examination. It is also found that apart from being an advocate he was the president of Marketing and processing Society and was involved in a Flower Show from 27.1.2009 to 2nd February, 2009 and it was during the above period that his outgoing calls were bared by the opposite party and it is also seen that the incoming facility was also bared subsequently. The complainant had deposed that he had produced the required documents for getting the connection on 5.1.2009. The very case of the complainant that the connection was barred without any intimation to him is not countered by the opposite party by producing any evidence. We find that the opposite parties are not empowered and entitled to disconnect a service without giving previous notice or intimation. If they wanted additional documents, they could have directed the complainants to produce the required documents. However the directions of the Forum below to pay Rs. 10,000/- a compensation and Rs. 2,000/-costs is found on a higher side. We find that a direction to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs will be just and proper to meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The other direction to provide lifetime validity in the most beneficial Tarrif Scheme is also found untenable.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Thereby the opposite parties/appellants are jointly and severally held liable to pay the complainant/respondent a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and 1,000/- as costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of payment. If the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
