Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member
1. The complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12/14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant has availed the Broad Band Internet services of the opposite parties, which was disconnected by the complainant by giving due intimation to the concerned office. The complainant was having account number 1012178064 and phone number 01636-281916; that the complainant had deposited due amount of Rs.1809/- of the aforesaid broad band connection on 17.01.2018 with office of Bagha Purana against proper receipt. But however, despite the payment of due amount, the complainant is being harassed by Opposite Party No. 2 by way of illegal court proceedings and he is being harassed unnecessarily. The complainant has been harassed unnecessarily by way of filing a false litigation by opposite parties, but however, nothing is due of the Opposite Parties against the complainant of aforesaid connection, which show the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Not only this, the complainant also served legal notice upon the Opposite Parties on 27.02.2017 and brought the whole matter into the knowledge of opposite parties mentioning that nothing is due against the complainant and he is being harassed by the Opposite Parties unnecessarily, but to no effect. Hence this complaint. The complainant has received the demand notice from the opposite parties on 1st February 2018 and hence the instant complaint is within limitation. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the present complaint to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the present complaint has been filed with malafide intention to harass the opposite parties. The complainant was defaulter of the BSNL, so the notices were issued by the BSNL to all the defaulters including the complainant. But the complainant did not deposit the outstanding amount till the stipulated period of notice sent by BSNL to complainant. So, the BSNL prepared the cases for recovery of outstanding amount and sent the same for recovery/settlement to Lok Addalat to be held on 10.02.2018 in the court of Sh.Pushpinder Singh, Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Bagha Purana. The complainant deposited the outstanding amount after sending the cases to Lok Addalat. The court of Sh.Pushpinder Singh, Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Bagha Purana issued a notice to complainant for appearing in the Lok Addalat on dated 10.02.2018 in the aforesaid case. So due to this reason, notice was issued to the complainant by the court, otherwise, the opposite parties have no personal interest in the matter in dispute. The opposite parties are government officials and they have performed only their official duties. On merits, it is admitted correct that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1809/- on 17.01.2018. As already stated above, when the complainant did not care do deposit the said amount, so the so the cases of all the defaulters, including the complainant were sent for recovery/settlement to Lok Addalat against them, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Kulwant Singh, JAO as Ex.OPs-1 and copies of documents Ex.OPs-2 to Ex.OPs-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard the complainant in person and ld. counsel for the opposite parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. During arguments, the complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 and contended that he has availed the Broad Band Internet services of the opposite parties, which was disconnected by the complainant by giving due intimation to the concerned office. It is the case of the complainant that he was having account number 1012178064 and phone number 01636-281916 and that the complainant had deposited due amount of Rs.1809/- of the aforesaid broad band connection on 17.01.2018 with office of Baghapurana against proper receipt. But however, despite the payment of due amount, the complainant is being harassed by Opposite Party No. 2 by way of illegal court proceedings and he is being harassed unnecessarily. The complainant has been harassed unnecessarily by way of filing a false litigation by opposite parties, but however, nothing is due of the Opposite Parties against the complainant of aforesaid connection, which show the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Not only this, the complainant also served legal notice upon the Opposite Parties on 27.02.2017 and brought the whole matter into the knowledge of opposite parties mentioning that nothing is due against the complainant and he is being harassed by the Opposite Parties unnecessarily, but to no effect and hence there is allegedly deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. To prove his case the complainant has produced on record the copy of legal notice Ex.C2 served upon the Opposite Parties, copy of notice issued by the court of Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Bagha Purana for appearance of the complainant on 10.02.2018 Ex.C3, copy of recovery notice Ex.C4, copy of receipt dated 17.01.2018 of Rs.1809/- issued by the Opposite Parties.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground that the complainant was defaulter of the BSNL, so the notices were issued by the BSNL to all the defaulters including the complainant. It is further contended that the complainant did not deposit the outstanding amount till the stipulated period of notice sent by BSNL to complainant. So, the BSNL prepared the cases for recovery of outstanding amount and sent the same for recovery/settlement to Lok Addalat to be held on 10.02.2018 in the court of Sh. Pushpinder Singh, Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Bagha Purana. The complainant deposited the outstanding amount after sending the cases to Lok Addalat. The court of Sh.Pushpinder Singh, Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Bagha Purana issued a notice to complainant for appearing in the Lok Adalat on dated 10.02.2018 in the aforesaid case. So due to this reason, notice was issued to the complainant by the court, otherwise, the opposite parties have no personal interest in the matter in dispute. The opposite parties are government officials and they have performed only their official duties. On merits, it is admitted correct that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1809/- on 17.01.2018. As already stated above, when the complainant did not care do deposit the said amount, so the so the cases of all the defaulters, including the complainant were sent for recovery/settlement to Lok Addalat against them, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. But we are not in agreement with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties. It is not the denial of the case that the complainant was having account number 1012178064 and phone number 01636-281916. Admitted facts of the case are that the complainant has to pay Rs.1809/- to the Opposite Parties against the aforesaid connection, which was duly deposited by the complainant with Opposite Parties vide receipt Ex.C5 on 17.01.2018 i.e. well within time. But however, after the deposit of the due amount of Rs.1809/- by the complainant with Opposite Parties against receipt, the Opposite Parties filed a case for recovery/settlement before Lok Addalat to be held on 10.02.2018 in the court of Sh. Pushpinder Singh, Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Bagha Purana and in this regard, the Hon’ble Lok Adalat also issued notice upon the complainant for appearance on 10.02.2018. But however, the complainant also served notice Ex.C2 upon the Opposite Parties through his counsel Sh.Avtar S.Gondara & Jaswant Singh, Advocates, District Courts, Faridkot, stating that he has already paid the due amount with the Opposite Parties against receipt, but despite receipt of the legal notice from the complainant, the Opposite Parties remained kept mum regarding the withdrawal of the case from the Hon’ble Court of Addl.Civil Judge, Bagha Purana for the reasons best known to them. The second contention of the Opposite Parties that the complainant was defaulter of the BSNL, so the notices were issued by the BSNL to all the defaulters including the complainant, but however, when the complainant has already deposited the due amount well before its due date, then how the complainant become the ‘defaulter’. And how the Opposite Parties can keep the complainant in ‘defaulters’ list without any fault/ negligence on the part of the complainant. Hence, the ruling produced by the Opposite Parties titled as Hinduja Leyland Finance Vs. Rajesh Tiwari in Appeal No.2780 of 2012 decided on 30.01.2014 of Hon’ble State Commission, Utter Pradesh Lucknow is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because in the supra ruling, the complainant remained defaulter of Hinduja Leyland Finance and the Hon’ble Commission has passed the order accordingly, but in the instant case the complainant never remained ‘defaulter’ because he has already deposited the due amount with the Opposite Parties against proper receipt before its due date. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the complainant must have suffered mental tension and harassment in the hands of the Opposite Parties, besides financial loss because he was compelled to hire advocate for sending legal notice upon the Opposite Parties, without any fault on the part of the complainant. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties in harassing the complainant by dragging him into false litigation in the Hon’ble Court of Addl.Civil Judge, Bagha Purana without any fault on his part, is an act of deficiency in service, and in this way, the complainant has caused lot of mental agony, harassment and inconvenience besides financial loss. In this regard, the complainant has sought for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation on account of mental tension and harassment, to the tune of Rs.7,000/- and we award the same accordingly. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.3,000/-. Opposite Parties are granted one month time to comply with the order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing the order until full and final payment. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
