are obliged to terminate the mobile service<br /> within 24 hours of the receipt of a request<br /> for termination of mobile service made <br /> through S.M.S. E-mail, fax etc and the <br /> inaction on the part of the authority<br /> in termination of the service amounts<br /> to deficiency in service and against the <br /> -5-<br /> interest of the consumer which gives <br /> unfair advantage to the operator by <br /> way of rent etc even when the customer<br /> is not using the service"<br /> 6. Apropos the defence plea about lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to try this complaint, firstly it may be pointed out that the opposite parties have not produce the terms and conditions of the agreement governing the issuance of mobile connection to the complainant and secondly a special provision had been made under Section 11 Clause (2) of the Consumer Protection Act.1986 to bestow the jurisdiction on the Forum where a cause of action in part has definitely arisen in District Kapurthala as mobile connection was issued to the complainant by Bharti Airtel Limited through its Dealer at Kapurthala. Thus, this Forum has jurisdiction to try the present complaint to redress the grievance by the consumer.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not at all liable to pay the telephone charges contained in the impugned bill dated 9.6.2007 for Rs.701-58 paise to the opposite parties but conversely the complainant is entitled to the compensation amounting to Rs.3000/- for mental agony and physical harassment on account of deficiency in its service besides Rs.500/- as costs of litigation. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the above direction within one month from the receipt of copy of this judgment. Copy of the <br /> <br /> <br /> -6-<br /> judgment be sent to the parties through registered post free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dated: Surinder Mittal A.K. Sharma<br /> 19.2.2008 Member President