DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No:70 of 2010]

                                                           Date of Institution : 03.02.2010

                                                           Date of Decision    : 24.04.2011

Sh. Vivek Singla son of Sh. I. D. Singla resident of House No.3269, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

1.    Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot no.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh.

2.    General Manager, Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot no.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:   SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA        PRESIDENT

                SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI     MEMBER

                SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

Argued By:Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Manav Bajaj, Advocate proxy  for

                   Sh. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the OPs.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Vivek Singla has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :-

i)                   To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- for the agony and harassment faced by the complainant at the hands of the OP.

ii)                 To refund the amount of Rs.75/- deducted by the Bank as cheque bouncing charges.

iii)              To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                In brief the case of the complainant is that he was having a broadband connection issued by OPs bearing no.4661779 having speed of 256 kpbs with unlimited downloading. A cheque bearing No.770227 for Rs.1,500/- dated 20.6.2009 was issued by the complainant to the collecting agent namely Ramesh towards the outstanding payment of the broadband connection. Subsequently, the complainant called up one Sunil of OP and requested him not to realize the cheque as the complainant intended to making the full payment of outstanding dues in cash. On being assured by Sh. Ramesh, the complainant made the payment of Rs.1,500/- in cash to Sh. Sunil-II on 22.6.2009 and an endorsement was made on the receipt as regards the payment made in lieu of the cheque No.770227. Thereafter, to the utter surprise of the complainant, OP sent the said cheque bearing No.770227 for clearance. The said cheque was returned by the Bank because of insufficiency of funds on 24.6.2009 and the complainant was also charged Rs.75/- as cheque bouncing charges. Thus, according to the complainant, the act of OPs in presenting the said cheque despite getting full payment of outstanding dues in case amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

                   In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                In the reply filed OP No.1 by way of affidavit of Sh. Jai Abhilash, Senior Manager, Legal & Regulatory Affairs, it has been averred the complainant has filed the present complaint with an ulterior motive to harass the OPs. Otherwise also, the complainant is not a consumer qua the OPs. It is also asserted that there is no occasion or cause of action for the complainant to file the present complaint, which is not maintainable. As per the OPs, the complainant has not impleaded Ramesh, Sunil and Sunil-II as parties to the complaint and thus, the complaint is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties. It is further asserted that once the cheque issued by the complainant is bounced, they have not received any payment against the said cheque. According to the OP, there is no deficiency in service on their part. So, the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

5.                The only grouse of the complainant is that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- to one Sunil-II in full and final settlement of the outstanding dues against him qua the broadband connection installed at his premises by the OPs. According to the complainant, earlier he had issued a cheque of Rs.1,500/- towards the payment of the said amount. Despite the fact that the complainant had paid the amount in cash, the said cheque was sent for clearance by the OP. The said cheque could not be cleared for insufficiency of funds. Therefore, the Bank charged a sum of Rs.75/- as cheque bouncing charges from the Bank Account of the complainant.

6.                Admittedly, the cheque could not be cleared because of insufficiency of funds, so, the OPs have not taken any excess amount from the complainant towards the outstanding dues of broadband connection. The only grouse of the complainant is that the Bank has accordingly deducted a sum of Rs.75/- as cheque bouncing charges fro his Bank Account. To our mind, once the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- in cash, the cheque in question should not have been sent for clearance/encashment by the OPs. Therefore, the presentation of the cheque of Rs.1,500/- by the OPs even after having received a similar amount in cash from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the refund of this amount.

7.                In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to refund an amount of Rs.75/- to the complainant being the cheque bouncing charges. In addition to this, OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental harassment and agony as well as litigation costs.

8.             This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay the aforesaid amounts i.e. Rs.2,075/- along with interest @18% per annum. The amount of Rs.75/- shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of deduction and the amount of compensation of Rs.2,000/- shall carry interest at the same rate i.e.18% from the date of filing the complaint i.e.03.02.2010 till the date of actual payment.

9.                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced.

27^th April 2011.

Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Ad/-

[Complaint Case No:70 of 2010]

PRESENT: None.

                                                          ---

                   Arguments heard on 25.04.2011. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned.

Announced.

27.04.2011       Member           President          Member