COMPLAINT FILED: 29.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 20th DECEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1919/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Saneesh Mathew,<br /> 12/A, 12th Cross,<br /> New Manjunatha Layout,<br /> Kowdenahally,<br /> Ramamurthy Nagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 016.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Bharti Airtel Ltd.,<br /> Circle Office : # 55,<br /> Divyasree Towers,<br /> Bannerghatta Main Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 029.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (B.J. Mahesh)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.85,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant availed the services of the OP on postpaid scheme to his mobile No. 9880583258. In order to pay the regular monthly bills he has authorized OP to collect the same through ECS from his HDFC Account No. 0761050144772. With all that the bill which was issued on 06.07.2008 had not been collected from his HDFC account. Subsequently refused the service and imposed restrictions and barred outgoing calls. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. On enquiry OP intimated him as per their records his account number is noted as 076150144772, which is on the face of it is wrong. Due to the carelessness and negligence of the OP, he is made to suffer. When his repeated requests and demands made to OP to rectify the said mistake, went in futile he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending that complainant furnished his account number with respect to HDFC Bank as 76150144772. The various bills dated 08.02.2008, 08.03.2008 and 08.04.2008 were cleared through ECS with respect to the said account, but the bill dated 08.06.2008 was not paid and it has remained unpaid. An endorsement is made by the HDFC Bank that “no such account”. So when complainant became the defaulter in non-payment of the said amount in due, OP has got a right to restrict the outgoing calls. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Even the bill dated 08.07.2008 was also cleared in the said account number. So if at all there is a mistake, it is a mistake committed by HDFC Bank in stating no such account and not honouring the ECS, for that OP cannot be blamed. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The HDFC Bank would have been the necessary party to explain the rejection of the bill dated 08.06.2008. But no such steps are taken. Under such circumstances the complaint is devoid of merits. OP is not liable to pay the compensation. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative <br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is a subscriber of OP under the postpaid scheme to his mobile No. 9880583258. Complainant authorized the payment of the bills through ECS from his HDFC Account No. 0761050144772. According to the complainant the bill dated 06.07.2008 was not collected. For no fault of his, OP arbitrarily restricted the outgoing calls, which has caused him both mental agony and financial loss. The negligence and carelessness on the part of the OP in maintaining the account No. 076150144772 as against his genuine account No. 0761050144772, caused prejudice and hardship to him. Hence he felt the deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that the ECS cheques have been cleared with respect to the complainant account No. 76150144772 not once but for many more months like February, March, April 2008. Unfortunately with respect to the bill dated 08.06.2008 the said amount remained unpaid since the HDFC Bank declined to credit the said amount with a reason “no such account”. The documents produced by the OP substantially show that complainant’s account No. 76150144772. The bills claimed by the OP were cleared with respect to the said account No. for the month of January, February, March, April, only for the month of June it is noted “no such account” and subsequently thereto for July and August also the transaction is approved with respect to the said account number. The content of the said document is not at dispute.<br /> <br /> 8. We find there is a substance in the defence set out by the OP that HDFC Bank would have been the necessary party to explain this discrepancy. The bank statement issued by the HDFC Bank refers to account No. 0761050144772, whereas the transfer of the transaction sent to the OP refers to the other account No. 76150144772. When the complainant became the defaulter in non-payment of the monthly bills OP invoked its powers in terms of the conditions of the agreement and stopped outgoing calls. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 9. Complainant ought to have taken steps against HDFC Bank for having caused confusion with regard to his account number. Complainant has not produced other piece of document to show that he intimated his account number to OP as 0761050144772. On the other hand OP has specifically contended that complainant informed his account number of HDFC Bank as 076150144772. A supporting document is produced by the OP. Under such circumstances we find the real mistake lies with HDFC Bank and not by the OP. Hence OP is not liable to pay the compensation.<br /> <br /> 10. In view of the discussions made by us in the above said paras, there is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is because of confusion in furnishing the account number, the mistake is crept in. The account number maintained by the OP got the full payment which is approved by the HDFC Bank, but suddenly for the said account it has endorsed no such account. Under such circumstances the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of December 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />