Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.11.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OPs to correctly appropriate the amount deposited by the complainants against the specific mobile numbers, as mentioned on the back of the cheques, deposited by the complainants. It was also directed that the penalties, if any, levied, shall be waived off and complete account statements shall be provided with respect to all the mobile phones w.e.f. July, 2008 and the excess amount, if any, shall be refunded. It was also directed that the OPs shall pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.4000/-, in respect of each telephone connection i.e. a total sum of Rs.32,000/- for causing them harassment along with Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 12.6.2009 till actual realization. 2. The facts, in brief, are that seven mobile connections, were provided by the OP Company under the Corporate category, bearing Nos.9876617419, 9872017119, 9872017120, 9872017121, 9872017123, 9872017124, 9872017125 & 9872017126 to the complainants. They were paying the bills regularly. The bill amount for the months of August, September and October, 2008 was paid by way of cheques Annexure C-1 to C-3 with details of each mobile number alongwith the bill amount, on the backside of the cheques. However, the OP company did not post the correct bill amount against each connection, and posted it in a negligent and arbitrary manner, against one connection, as a result whereof, it started disconnecting the mobile connections, on account of non-payment of the amount of the bill. The complainants had to get the same restored time and again since August, 2008, as detailed in Para Nos 5 & 6 of the complaint. It was further stated that the acts of the OPs, in disconnecting their mobile phones, amounted to deficiency, in service. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no other alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be referred to as the Act only) was filed by them. 3. OP No.1, in its reply, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that inadvertently the composite amount of Rs.7820/- paid through cheque, was posted, against one number, which was later on identified and corrected. It was further stated that the said mistake was not intentional. It was further stated that as per records of the OP Company, mobile No.9872017120 was never barred, as alleged by the complainants. It was further stated that the Consumer Fora had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and decide the same. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. 4. OP No.2 did not turn up, despite service, and it was proceeded against ex parte. 5. The parties led evidence. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Appellant/OP 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, a cheque in the sum of Rs.7820/-, mentioning on the back thereof the details of the mobile numbers, as also the amount of bill against each number, was put in the drop box by the complainant. He further submitted that due to inadvertence of the officials of the OP, instead of posting the amount paid through the aforesaid cheque, against each bill, as per amount due , it was posted against one mobile phone number. It was further submitted that when this mistake was detected, it was corrected later on. It was further submitted that the District Forum had no jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan & anr –(2009)8SCC481 . 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that there was, no dispute, between the parties. He further submitted that it was not the case of the complainant/respondent, that there was over billing, on the part of the OPs, or that any of the mobile phone was not receiving signals. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the Consumer Fora was competent to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further submitted that the principle of law, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan & anr’s case (supra),is not applicable, to the facts of the instant case. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly accepted , for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It was proved from the facts, on record, that the complainants had been making payment of the bills regularly. The bills for the months of August, September and October,2008 were paid through cheque Annexure A-9. The details of the mobile numbers and the amount of the bill due against each of the mobile number, were written on the cheque itself. The total amount of the bill was Rs.7820/-. It was not that the details of the mobile phones, as also the amount due against each, as per the bill were not mentioned by the complainant. This factum was also admitted by the OPs, in their written statement, as also by their Counsel at the time of arguments. A-1 is a copy of the cheque dated 8.2.2008 in the sum of Rs.6515/- in which also the numbers of all the mobile phones, and the amount due against each mobile phone were also written. The amount of Rs.7820/-, which was paid vide Cheque A-9, instead of posting against each mobile phone, was posted against one number and the complainant was shown defaulter in making payment in respect of other mobile numbers. The next bill for payment was for October,2008. The complainant as per cheque annexure-A-17 paid a total sum of Rs.6020/- towards the bills Annexures A-19 to 25. The bill against Mobile No.9872017123 was for Rs.620/-, but the OPs adjusted the amount of Rs.930/- against this account. Similarly the amount of bill against Mobile No.9872017126 was Rs.660/- but the OPs adjusted the amount of Rs.1260/- against the said mobile number, as a result whereof, the payment against the remaining bills got reduced and the mobile connections were disconnected or their calls were barred. OP No.1 admitted their fault in Para Nos.4 & 6 of the reply, to the effect, that it was only on account of an inadvertence that the composite amount paid through cheque was posted against one number, instead of the bills of all mobile phones. The Complainants, thus, suffered harassment on account of disconnection of mobile numbers , as a result of which, they could not use the service, for which they had already paid. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that it was on account of the negligence of the officials of the respondents that all this happened and harassment was caused to the complainants which amounted to deficiency in service. 12. No doubt, the Counsel for the appellant, placed reliance on General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan & anr’s case(supra),decided by the Apex Court on 1.9.2009 to contend that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, was, to the effect, that if there was any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus, the same shall be determined by arbitration, as mentioned in Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, to decide the same, was barred. In the instant case, there was no dispute, falling under Section7B of the said Act. It was not the case of the complainants, that the bills sent to them were not according to the usage or they were not receiving signals to contact other mobile phone users. In fact, the amount of bills which was demanded by the OPs, was paid by the complainants. It was only the question of negligence, on the part of the officials of the OP, that the amount of bills could not be posted, against different mobile phones numbers. The District Forum, was right, in holding that the matter did not fall within the purview of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act and the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, was not applicable. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail and same is rejected. 13. Now coming to the relief, granted by the District Forum, it may be stated here, that the compensation to the tune of Rs.32,000/- awarded by the District Forum i.e. Rs.4000/-, in respect of each connection, was on the higher side. This needs reduction. To such an extent, the appeal deserves to be partly accepted, and the order deserves to be modified. 14. For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The direction of the District Forum, to the OP, to pay the total sum of Rs.32,000/-( a sum of Rs.4000/- in respect of each mobile connection) to the complainant, is modified, and it is directed that the OP shall pay a sum of Rs.16,000/-( i.e. Rs.2000/- for each of the eight connections) The remaining reliefs/directions given by the District Forum, shall remain intact. 15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 16. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
