Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.8.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.1100/- and directed the OPs not to demand any charges from the complainant, and rather pay him Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing him mental and physical harassment. The OPs were further directed to comply with the order within 30 days of the receipt of a certified copy, failing which they would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount with interest @ 9 p.a. from the date of order till actual payment. 2. The OPs (now respondents) approached the complainant (appellant) for the use of fixed landline and broadband services, at his home, and the same were installed vide telephone NO.4622076. The complainant used the services upto the 2nd week of November 2009, and applied for disconnection of the same, vide disconnection slip dated 12.11.2009. He surrendered the equipments vide Customer Premises Equipment Return Note dated 13.11.2009. Thereafter, he received bill dated 18.11.2009 for Rs.479/-, which was paid by him, vide receipt dated 1.12.2009. However, he was surprised to receive another bill of Rs.550/- for the period from 17.11.2009 to 16.12.2009, whereupon, he met the officials of the OPs, and brought to their notice, that he had already surrendered the telephone. He again received bills dated 18.1.2010 for Rs.1,174/- and 18.2.2010 for Rs.1,699/-, upon which he made a written complaint dated 26.2.2010 to the OPs, but no action, was taken. It was further stated that the recovery agents of the OPs started humiliating and harassing his family members. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. In the written reply, filed by the OPs, the factual matrix was not disputed. It was stated that the confirmation calls were made to the complainant, wherein, the disconnection was not confirmed by him. It was further stated that, as such, the telephone connection could not be disconnected, but on receipt of summons, from the District Forum, in the complaint, the disconnection was confirmed. It was further stated that the bills for the months of December 2009, January,2010 and February 2010 were waived off. It was denied that the recovery agent ever threatened, humiliated or even visited the house of the complainant. It was also denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs, or they indulged into unfair trade practice. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellant/complainant, for enhancement of compensation, and litigation charges. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for appellant, submitted that, the appellant and his family members were harassed to a great extent by the agents of the OPs and even sent them unnecessary bills for the period, when the instrument, modem and ISDN had already been collected by them on 13.11.2009, on the request of the complainant, for disconnection of the connection. He further submitted that, for such harassment, for a long time and raising unnecessary bills, against non-existing connection , the complainant was required to be adequately compensated, though, on the other hand, the District Forum granted only a sum of Rs.5000/-, as compensation, and Rs.1100/- as costs of litigation, which amounts were too meagre to meet the ends of justice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, needs modification by enhancing the amount of compensation, and litigation charges. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the District Forum, after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, rightly came to the conclusion, that the amount of compensation, in the sum of Rs.5000/-, if awarded, would meet the ends of justice. He further submitted that, even the costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.1100/- are not on the lower side. He further submitted that the Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the cost of the service providers. He further submitted that the amounts of compensation and litigation charges, awarded by the District Forum, are commensurate with the deficiency in service, on the part of the OPs. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, does not call for any interference. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The OPs/respondents have not challenged, the order impugned by way of an appeal. The short question, that falls for consideration is, as to whether, the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation and litigation charges, or not. No doubt, as per C-1 acknowledgement slip dated 12.11.2009, the complainant requested the OPs to disconnect his telephone connection. The request was acceded to by the OPs. On acceptance of request of the complainant, the OPs collected the instrument, modem and ISDN on 13.11.2009 vide annexure C-2. Thereafter, the OPs sent a bill, for the period from 17.11.2009 to 18.12.09. He also received bill dated 18.1.2010(annexure C-5) and 18.2.2010(annexure C-6). Since, the instrument, modem and ISDN had already been taken away by the OPs on 13.11.2009 vide annexure C-2, the question of sending the bills for the subsequent periods in relation to the telephone connection, did not at all arise. The OPs, as admitted by them, have already waived off the bills for the months of December,2009, January,2010 & February,2010,during the pendency of the complaint, before the District Forum. After taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum, came to conclusion that though the bill dated 18.12.2009 C-4, dated 18.1.2010 C-5 and dated 18.2.2010 C-6 had already been waived off, by the OPs, during the pendency of the complaint, after the receipt of summons, for appearance, yet there was deficiency in service, but not to such an extent, as to grant, highly excessive compensation, to the complainant. It is settled principle of law, that the Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the cost of the service providers. The compensation, awarded by the Consumer Foras should be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the facts and circumstances and deficiency in service, rendered by the service provider. It should not be unreasonable and excessive, so as to give an impression, to the people, that in the Consumer Foras, any amount of compensation, even for minor deficiencies could be granted. The compensation and costs of litigation awarded, in this case, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be, unfair or meagre. No ground, therefore, is made out, for enhancement of the same. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. The order rendered by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission . 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.3000/- . 13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 14. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
