This is a consumer dispute case of the year 2008. In spite of repeated adjournments counsel for complainant and OP No.2 are absent. On 10.3.2022, the case was listed for hearing. Counsel for OP No.1 was present. Counsel for complainant and OP No.2 were absent, matter was adjourned to 21.4.2022. On 21.4.2022 counsel for OP No.1 was present but counsel for complainant and OP No.2 were absent matter was adjourned to 29.4.2022 for hearing. On 29.4.2022 counsel of complainant and OP No.2 were absent, counsel for OP No.1 filed evidence on affidavit.
Today the matter was listed under the heading “to be mentioned.”
Counsel of OP No.1 is present and counsel for the complainant and OP No.2 are absent. In the meantime, 14 years have been elapsed but the matter has not been disposed of till date. Considering the said fact, we take up the matter on merit for final disposal.
2. Complainant has filed the present consumer dispute case challenging the inaction of the opp.parties more particularly, opp.party No. 1 & 2 for disconnection of the mobile phone due to non-payment of telephone bill amount. The case of the complainant is that she is a consumer and has taken the connection from opp.party No.1 - Bharati Airtel Limited. On 24.11.2007 opp.party No.1 issued a bill amounting to Rs.853.95 vide bill no. 689674908 for the period from 23.10.2007 to 22.11.2007 fixing the date on 12.12.2007 as last date of payment vide Annexure – 1 to the complaint petition. Complainant deposited the bill amount by cheque bearing No. 9538943 on 11.12.2007 drawn on State Bank of India, Main Branch, Cuttack. In spite of payment through the cheque on 18/20.12.2007 opp.party No. 1 disconnected the service of the phone of the complainant without any prior notice on the ground of non-payment of monthly charges vide the bill under Annexure – 1. It is the case of the complainant that when the aforesaid cheque was presented before the Axis Bank, Cuttack Branch, Badambadi, opp.party No.3, the opp.party No.3 forwarded the same to opp.party No.2 for disbursement/ for payment but opp.party No.2 returned the cheque for insufficient of fund with an endorsement to that effect vie Annexure – 2 Series to the complaint petition. It is the case of the complaint that the complainant has sufficient fund in her account on the date of presentation of the cheque. Challenging the above action of the opp.parties the complainant filed the complaint petition making several allegations against the opp.parties and praying to award compensation of Rs.20,60,000/- from the opp.parties and further with the prayer not to disconnect the mobile phone of the complainant without prior notice.
3. On receipt of notice from this Commission, opp.party No.1 - Bharati Airtel Limited appeared and filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint petition. Further, stating that the cheque so produced by the complainant was bounced twice due to insufficient fund for which legal notice was issued by the Company to the compliant vide Annexure – A/4 to the written version.
4. Opp.party No.2 also filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint petition. Complainant filed an application vide Misc. Petition No. 379 of 2008 for amendment of the complaint case after receipt of written version from opp.party No.2.
5. Learned counsel for opp.party No.1 filed evidence on affidavit along with date chart stating that opp.party No.1 has disconnected the mobile number for non-payment of dues and there is no involvement of human being in burring/disconnecting the mobile number adhering the Clause – 32 of the terms and conditions of the Subscriber Enrolment Form (SEF) and opp.party No.1 has committed nothing wrong in disconnecting/deactivating the complainant’s number.
6. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the opp.party No.1 submitted that on 24.11.2007 bill was issued for the period from 23.10.2007 to 22.11.2007. On 11.12.2007 complainant issued the cheque which was dishonoured on 13.12.2007 and it was brought to the notice of the complainant by OP No.1. On 17.12.2007 the mobile connection was disconnected and on request the same was activated. On the request of the complainant again for second time on 20.12.2007 the cheque was presented before the Bank for encashment. On 24.12.2007 again the said cheque was dishonoured and same was brought to the notice of the opp.party No.1. on 26.12.2007 and again the phone was disconnected, and then activated. Challenging the said action of OPs, complainant filed the case on 2.1.2008.
7. On going through the written version and the evidence on affidavit and the documents filed by the complainant we found that the complainant has issued the cheque against bill dated 24.11.2007 for the period from 23.10.2007 to 22.11.2007 but the cheque was dishonoured twice for insufficient fund”. The mobile connection was disconnected by the auto parkway system of the telecom department and there is no latches on the part of opp.party No.1. To substantiate the case, opp.party No.1 has annexed the legal notice issued to the complainant for insufficient fund.
8. On going through the counter affidavit filed by opp.party No.2 – Bank, it is found that the Bank has filed the written version which is misconceived and has not stated under which circumstances the cheque of the complainant was dishonoured twice although sufficient money was there in the account of the complainant to honour the cheque.
9. On going through the complaint petition, written version of OP No.1 and 2, we found the OP No.2, State Bank of India has returned the cheque no. 958943 dated 11.12.2007 issued by complainant on 13.12.2007 du to “insufficient fund” vide Annexure – 2 series to complaint petition and again on the request of complainant the OP No.1 presented the said cheque for second time on 20.12.2007 again the said cheque returned to OP No.1 with a remark “insufficient of fund” (Vide Annexure – A/3 to written version). Complainant has filed the copy of the pas book showing an amount of Rs.7,151.61 was there in her account during relevant period to honour the cheque amounting Rs.853/- but the OP No.2 has not denied the same and not given any reply to that effect in its written version. Admittedly, sufficient amount was there in the account of complainant to honour the cheque during the relevant period but OP No.2 returned the cheque twice on the ground of insufficient of fund which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opp.party No.2. During the pendency of this complaint petition, the complainant filed an application to amend the complaint petition. No counsel on behalf of complainant is present today to move the amendment petition. We have gone through the amendment petition and found that the complainant has already deposited the dues of OP No.1 in shape of Demand Draft bearing No. 399362 dated 14.1.2008 amounting Rs.854/- which has been accepted by OP No.1 towards the unpaid monthly bill for the period from 23.10.2007 to 22.11.2007 but the OP No.1 has not returned the cheque no. 958943 dated 11.12.2007 to the complainant.
10. In view of such fact, we hold that it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.
11. Hence, we direct the OP No.2 to pay Rs.2,000/- to complainant towards the compensation for harassment within one month from the date of receipt of this order and said amount shall be realized from the person who was dealing with the matter during the relevant period in bank and returned the cheque on the ground of insufficient of fund and further direct the OP No.1 to return the cheque no. 958943 dated 11.12.2007 amounting Rs.854/- issued by complainant to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The above compensation amount shall be paid by OP No.2 to complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the above amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till the date of realization.
12. Accordingly, complaint case is disposed of.
No cost.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.
