BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 24/2003 Filed on 16.01.2003

Dated : 30.05.2009

Complainant:

Gopi Krishna Pillai. M.G, Vrindavanam House, Thalayar, Kuttoor P.O, Thiruvalla-689 106.

Opposite parties:

1. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd., 1^st Floor, Mather Square, North Railway Station Road, Kochi-682 018.

    

Addl. Opposite party:

2. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd., Kenton Towers, Near Kalabhavan,Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.

(By adv. S.S. Kalkura)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 14.12.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 02.04.2009, the Forum on 30.05.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI .A : MEMBER

The complainant in this case obtained a BPL postpaid mobile connection by paying an amount of Rs. 725/- on 20.11.2002. He got the connection on 26.11.2002 and the opposite party issued first bill on 11.12.2002 and the complainant paid the bill on 16.12.2002. The second bill was received on 11.01.2003. Bill statement No. is 00000 197190 12003 and bill date was 07.01.2003, bill period was 07.12.2002 -06.01.2003. Bill due date was 22.01.2003. But 8 days before the due date i.e; on 14.01.2003 the opposite party disconnected the outgoing facility. As a medical representative the complainant has faced so many difficulties in his business due to his disconnection. Hence he filed this complaint for the redressal of his grievances.

In this case the 1^st opposite party BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. filed version. 2^nd opposite party remained exparte. The 1^st opposite party stated that as per the agreed terms of subscription complainant has a credit limit of Rs. 1000/- and the subscriber needs to limit his calls upto Rs. 1000/- unless the same is enhanced by making deposit. The credit limit is fixed as a matter of safety and to mitigate the loss to the company when subscriber crosses the credit limit and subsequently defaults the payment whereby company is put under loss. The credit limit is a condition of service itself which the complainant has agreed as well. Opposite party submitted that the complainant was given connection under a special scheme whereby he has not made any deposit as well. His first bill was raised on 07.12.2002 for Rs. 884/- and of the same he has made a part payment only on 22.12.2002. The bill amount has been thus defaulted and even after that the services were continued. Thereafter, after further usage the dues accumulated and the total dues crossed the credit limit and as a last recourse the services were disconnected. It may be appreciated that the bill amounts were not even remitted by the complainant and as on date an amount of Rs. 1180.54 is due from the complainant. Opposite party further submitted that when the complainant reached the credit limit, even repeated short messages were issued to the complainant as a mark of service and inspite of repeated requests as well no deposits were made by the complainant nor he has paid the balance bill amounts and finally when the credit limit has been crossed, the services were to be disconnected. They submitted that the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and the prayer for damages and compensation is unsustainable. Complainant is not entitled for Rs. 10,000/- or any other amount. The statement about mental pain and agony are false and denied. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

In this case the complainant and opposite party filed affidavits and examined the complainant as PW1 and the opposite party cross examined the complainant. From the complainant's side one document was marked as Ext. P1 and the opposite party filed a document as Ext. D1.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- The main allegation of the complainant levelled against the opposite parties are that before the due date of the bill, the opposite parties disconnected the outgoing facility of his postpaid mobile connection. The complainant has produced the bill as Ext. P1 before this Forum. As per Ext. P1 the due date was 22^nd January 2003 and bill amount was Rs. 907.83. But the opposite party has withdrawn the outgoing service on 14.01.2003, i,e; 8 days before the due date. As per the complainant the act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficient service.

Opposite party stated that as per the terms and conditions of the opposite party and the complainant the opposite party has the right to withdraw the connection if the subscriber crosses the credit limit. As per the agreed terms the complainant has a credit limit of Rs. 1000/-. The opposite party produced the bills as Ext. D1. The terms and conditions are printed in the overleaf of the bill. As per Clause 6 Credit Limit “the company reserved the right to apply a monthly financial limit for call charges incurred by you. If you exceed this limit, the company has the right to

(a) collect “Excess Limit Charges”when total amount due exceeds the “credit limit”.

(b) Suspend without notice access to the service in whole or in part”.

In this case at the time of cross examination the complainant deposed that “Bill പ്രകാരം Rs. 1180.54 ഞാന്‍ BPL ന് അടയ്ക്കാന്‍ ഉണ്ട്. Ext. P1ന് ശേഷം bill കിട്ടി. അത് ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല. എടുക്കുന്ന സമയത്ത് കിട്ടിയ bill Rs. 884/- നാണ്. December രണ്ടാം തീയതി അതിന്‍റെ part payment നടത്തി. 02.01.2003 ആണോ എന്ന് ഓര്‍ക്കുന്നില്ല Credit bar ആയി എന്ന് SMS കിട്ടിയിരുന്നു. 08.01.2003ന് വീണ്ടും SMS വന്നു. SMS വന്ന ദിവസം Saturday ആയിരുന്നു. അതിനാല്‍ ഞാന്‍ call centre-ല്‍ വിളിച്ച് Monday അടയ്ക്കാം എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിരുന്നു. തിങ്കളാഴ്ചയും ഞാന്‍ അടച്ചില്ല. Printed statement വരാന്‍ വേണ്ടി കാത്തിരിക്കുകയായിരുന്നു”. From the above mentioned statement of the complainant it is clear that the complainant has crossed credit limit of Rs. 1000/-. Hence as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the opposite party has the right to disconnect the outgoing facility. Hence there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. Hence the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30^th May 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 24/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Gopi Krishna Pillai

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of bill issued by BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of Subscription Form Routing Sheet issued by BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd, dated 26.11.2002.

PRESIDENT