Present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Kehar Singh against Bharti Cellular Ltd. though its m.D. and other functionaries seeking direction against the opposite parties for restoring the service on mobile connection bearing No.9815022246 illegally disconnected and for monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties,<br /> 2. In nutshell the facts in the complaint are that complainant who is an advocate was allotted mobile connection bearing No.9815022246 on payment of due charges by the opposite parties. It is however, averred that representative of opposite party No.4 approached him and offered to provide Internet (G.P.R.S.) connection without voice calls and on his acceptance simcard was supplied with connection No.9815992246 against security. That number was activated without voice calls only for Internet use. It is further averred that he got the said Internet service disconnected on 7/9/06 by him on account of frequent break-down in the net services and he has not used the said connection since Sept.2006 nor he received any call or bill from AIRTEL office nor he even used the impunged connection.. He is having another connection of Airtel bearing No. 9815022246 and the bill regarding the same was being paid by him regularly and nothing was due against him in respect of the said connection. It is further alleged that complainant received notice dated 10/8/07 from Law Icons firm on behalf of the AIRTEL requiring him to pay Rs.1420/- as bill dues of connection No.9815992246 in response to which complainant promptly inquired from the AIRTEL office as to for which period amount is due as he has paid all the bills and nothing was due.. It is further alleged that on 25/9/07 service of mobile connection No.9815022246 was blocked at once without any prior notice and even access to customer care services was not allowed. He requested AIRTEL authorities through E-mail and other sources to restore service of the said connections and to provide details of the period for which amount demanded but in vain. Therefore, opposite parties are clearly guilty of deficiency in service for which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 appeared and controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. Preliminary objections have been raised that Consumer Forum Kapurthala has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint as the complainant agreed that in the event of any dispute, only Court at Roop Nagar shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such complaint.. On merits factum of suspension of mobile services of connection No.9815022246 in Sept.2006 is not disputed but the same has been defended as legal and valid because amount of Rs.1419/- was due against mobile connection No.9815992246 and as such AIRTEL Co. was well within its right to disconnect the said mobile connection as per their rules. Therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on its part.<br /> 4. Since the matter pertains to petty amount of Rs.1420/- opposite party was directed to produce the bill of outstanding amount amount of Rs.1420/- allegedly issued to the complainant and complainant was also directed to file bills for amicable settlement of the dispute.. On 11/3/2008 counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 3 made statement that he does not want to produce any documents/evidence on behalf of opposite parties No.1 to 3 and closed it.<br /> We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents on the record. We have gone through the notice dated 10/8/07 purported to be issued by AIRTEL Company to the complainant for recovery of Rs.1419.72 against mobile connection No.9815992246 with future surcharge @2% and also reply sent by the complainant dated 27/8/07 urging therein to refrain from claiming this amount as he has already paid the entire amount and got connection disconnected since Sept.2006.He had also not received any bill afterwards. It is therefore, apparent that opposite party had failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his claim on showing due of Rs.1419.72 against mobile connection No.9815992246 nor any bill has been produced as per direction of this Forum. Therefore, suspension of mobile connection bearing No.9815022246 by the opposite parties is illegal, null and void which amounts to deficiency in service entailing inconvenience and harassment to the complainant <br /> Apropos the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain and try this complaint, admittedly, no agreement, whatsoever, has been produced by the opposite party and moreso mobile connection was obtained and services provided to the complainant and deficiency in service was faced by him within the territorial area of Kapurthala, so this Forum has got the jurisdiction to try this complaint.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussionfinding defence plea of the opposite parties as untenable for suspension of mobile service, we accept this complaint and direct the opposite parties to restore mobile service of connection No.9915522246 within fifteen days from the receipt of copy of this order and also to pay monetary compensation of Rs.2500/- on account of deficiency in service and costs of litigation of Rs.500/- payable within one month from the receipt of copy of this order by the opposite parties to the complainant.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : (Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 11.3.2008 Member President.<br />