The complainant is working at Indus Ind Bank Ltd., Basavanagudi Branch, as Legal Executive, Asset Recovery Division, due to the disconnection of the mobile number without prior notice to complainant, wherein complainant had lost all the contacts saved in the mobile number which is necessary for his work, as he is working in the recovery field and it has caused him an irreparable damage which cannot be compensated by any manner. The complainant had paid all the bills up to date till the month on February 2013, there is no default in the payment bills from complainant from the date of obtaining the said connection of the above mobile number. The complainant has even paid the bill pertaining to the month of February 2013 which is after the disconnection of the above said mobile number. Although several personal visits to the OPs office from the complainant but all those efforts went in vain and futile, which clearly establishes the deficiency of service from the OPs. Hence having no other remedy the complainant issued a legal notice through his counsels on 25.02.2013. The said notice was duly served on the OP-2 but again for the best reasons known to OP-2 has kept mum and has not responded to the same. The notice sent to the OP-1 did not return nor the acknowledgement came back to the complainant. Hence the complainant had filed a complaint before the concerned post master on 26.03.2013. The said post office had issued letter dated 15.04.2013 which was served/received by the counsel for the complainant on 16.04.2013 wherein the concerned post master has stated that the said notice of OP was delivered on 01.03.2013. But there was no reply for the said notice from OP-1.
By virtue of the negligence acts on the part of the OPs, the complainant after paying all the bill amount for the said mobile number connections by undergoing severe mental agony due to the disconnection of the mobile number and was constrained to run around from pillar to post for the office of the OPs. Further the acts on the part of OPs in giving assurances of good reputation that they would provide the good network connection and thereafter turn around with their professional misconduct amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant is constrained to file the complaint before this Forum seeking necessary relief for his grievance.
3. In response to the notice issued, OPs appeared through their advocate and filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint. The sum and substance of the version of the OPs are that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal No.7687/2004 dated 01.09.2009 in the matter between General Manager, Telecom V/s M.Krishnan and another reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5631 followed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the order dated 18.07.2012 passed in Revision Petition No.398/2011 (Ziyauddin Alvi V/s Bharti Airtel Ltd.,) As per the judgments, since the dispute raised by the complainant is between the subscribe and telecom service provider, the remedy available for the complainant is under section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, which provides for adjudication of dispute under the provisions of Arbitration Act. On this count itself the present on the said judgment the various State Commissions have also disposed off the complaints holding that any dispute concerning any Telegraph line, appliances or apparatus shall be determined by the arbitrators. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. OP further submits that complainant has suppressed the actual and material facts. Complainant is a person by name Mr.Anil Raj R, was the subscriber of the OP with respect to mobile No.9972333935. The said person remain defaulter in payment of the bill amount to an extent of Rs.1,845/- as such the said number was suspended on 22.02.2012 and disconnected on 25.03.2012. The OP, to that matter all the telecom service providers are having system of de duping for identifying defaulters/risky customers only to avoid the customers escaping from without making the liabilities thereby creating a bad debt as against telecom companies. The matching criteria would be on name, fathers name, address etc. In the instant case while the OP doing the de duping process found that, the complainant herein by name Mr.R.Anand Raj furnished the same address and father’s name, that of Mr.R.Anil Raj, is using the mobile number 9900023417.
On 22.01.2013 complainant was informed about the outstanding amount with respect to mobile number 997233935 either being used by the complainant himself or his kith and kin and requested to clear the outstanding amount of Rs.1,845/- to resume 22.01.2013 at 18.46 hrs. Initially complainant has reacted as if he is nothing do nor any of his family members using or used 9972333935. But later informed that his brother was using the number. Though the complainant was requested to contact the OP and make payment, complainant neither contacted the OP or made the payment of the outstanding. Hence 9900023417 was barred on 23.01.2013 once again on 25.01.2013 at 13.58 hrs one more message was sent to the complainant once again requesting the complainant make good the payment of Rs.1,845/- so that, the services will be restored within 4 hours of payment if made by cash or 24 hours if the payment is made through cheque. Since the complainant did not respond, OP was compelled to suspend the connection with effect from 28.01.2013.
The process of de depuing and the action being taken on disconnection of the number which are being used by producing the same address and other details which clearly presupposes that either the numbers are being used by the same person or by the close relatives like brothers, sisters or father and son etc. However the complainant having suppressed all these facts has come up with this false complaint.
OPs have also given para wise reply to the contents of the complaint, which appears to be denial in nature.
For the reasons mentioned above, OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant in support of his case tendered his affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint. On behalf of OPs authorized signatory Sri.Jayanth M.R, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. Both parties have produced certain documents. Written arguments have been filed. We have also heard oral arguments.
5. The points that arise for our consideration are:
