REKHA GUPTA

        Revision petition no. 2873 of 2016 has been filed against the judgment dated 22.04.2016 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 444 of 2014.

2.     The facts of the case as per the petitioner/complainant are that the petitioner a resident of Vadodra filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vadodara against the respondent – Airtel alleging that the petitioner had an Airtel connection bearing no. 9898810115 in his Nokia mobile from the respondents for over three years. The petitioner recharged mobile service with coupon for Rs.75/- and got a talk time of Rs.50/- valid for 30 days. As on 26.07.2008, the petitioner was having a balance of Rs.6.70 on his account. It was alleged that though there was credit balance of Rs.6.70 on his account, the petitioner received a message from Airtel which showed minus balance of Rs.22.54. It was alleged that by the act of showing debit balance of Rs.22.50/- in the account of the petitioner, the respondents are guilty of deficiency of service and because of the act of the respondent, the petitioner did not recharge after 26.07.2008 to till date. The petitioner has therefore prayed for damages of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, hardship and inconvenience.

3.     On service of notice, respondent no. 1 filed an affidavit in reply and denied all the allegations made in the complaint. It was mainly contended that the respondent company was an internationally reputed company and provides best services in the field of communications. The balance of Rs.22.54 was not shown illegally as negative balance but in fact the petitioner had utilised the amount lying to his credit to the values to the extent and beyond and, therefore, it was shown as debit balance. The petitioner was duty bound to pay Rs.22.54 to the respondent in respect of the services that has been utilised by him. That these services were either in the form of value added services like caller tune or normal conversation over the telephone. It was not true that if the company cannot allow the customers to talk if there is no balance, if the telephone conversation was going on or the petitioner has subscribed to the value added services, in such situation, the account gets automatically debited. It was only when a fresh call is to be made, the customer cannot make the call in absence of balance standing to his credit. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and by suppressing material facts, false complaint had been filed. The respondent also contended that the petitioner was an advocate and should have been aware that he could have got details regarding his user charges and talk time which had been utilised by him. No notice has been given to the respondent before filing the complaint for getting details and this complaint was nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.     The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Addl.) Vadodara (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 28.10.2013 while dismissing the complaint observed as under:

“This is a vague matter and it wastes the time of court and other advocates who are standing in the queue from long time for justices. In these circumstances, the relief asked by the complainant is not deserved to be allowed. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, generally protests the consumer and this aim of legislature to constitute the law. Because prior that no businessmen or company are taking care of the consumer in every filed but it does not mean that the consumer is always right. The Forum has to take care prior to give the decision. The Opponent Company is a giant company in Telecommunication filed and it has no intention to snatch the hardened money from the pocket of consumer”.

5.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/ complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 22.04.2016, while dismissing the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum observed as under:

“The District Forum has discussed each and every aspect in its true perspective. In our opinion, no legal error or inappropriate facts are prima facie found in the judgment and order of the District Forum. Nothing has come on record which would prima facie shown that the complainant has made any inquiry in reference to the talk time which has been used by him and in reference to the debit balance shown by opponent in the sum of Rs.22.54. As an advocate he could have easily got the same. In our opinion, had the complainant immediately paid the amount even under protest subject to raising his grievances with the opponent subsequently, then probably he might not have lost his mobile number which he has been using since long but the complainant did not make payment of Rs.22.54. Under the circumstances, his mobile connection has been discontinued by the opponent for which the complainant has to thank himself. As discussed above, when no prayer for allotting his old mobile number is made, the question would not arise for granting such a relief. The compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant and without any base. In our opinion, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. We, therefore, pass the following order:

        Appeal no. 444 of 2014 is dismissed. No order as to costs”.

6.     Hence, the present revision petition.      

7.     The revision petition has been filed with a delay of four days. For the reason given in the application for condonation of delay, the delay is condoned.

8.     We have heard the petitioner/ complainant who is appearing in person. His main contention was that the judgment of the lower Fora should be set aside, because they have not appreciated and have not understood the pre-paid mobile service as there cannot be a minus balance on pre-paid facility, hence, the orders of the lower Fora should be set aside. He has also contended that the State Commission has erred in concluding that he had failed to provide any evidence to show that he has made any enquiry with reference to the talk time which he had been using wherein debit balance was shown by the respondent. He brought to our notice the SMS received from the respondent which reads as under:

“We have received your query and we will get back to you within 24 hours”.

There is no evidence however, as to what was the enquiry made by him and the date on which it was made and the message received from the respondent.

9.     We have gone through the file. The respondents/ OPs in their written submissions have explained that any balance in the prepaid account at the time of expiry of validity period is carried forward when the account is recharged during the stipulated time period. They have further explained that it was not true that the Company cannot allow the customer to talk for a minute even if there is no balance. It has been stated that in case of a conversation is going on or the complainant has subscribed to the value added services, in such a situation, the account gets automatically debited. It is only when a fresh call is to be made the customer cannot make the call in the absence of any balance standing to his credit.

10.    We agree with the finding of the State Commission that the petitioner has taken no initiative to enquire into the talk time consumed by him as also the reasons for the debit balance shown as Rs.22.54 in his account. Petitioner has not indicated the date on which the last recharge coupon of Rs.85 with a talk time of Rs.50 was taken either in the complaint or in the legal notice. A reading of the legal notice dated 02.08.2008 also shows that even in the legal notice he had not asked for any details regarding the talk time service provided to him which resulted in a debit balance of Rs.22.54.

11.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed:

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”  

12..   Thus, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for our interference under Section 21 (b) of Act.  The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is dismissed.