Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal lying in this Commission since 2004. No steps were taken by the appellant for circulation since objections were removed. Our office on its own placed this matter before this Bench for disposal. On 03/08/2011 on finding that both the parties were absent and matter was taken out from sine-die list, we have directed the office to issue notices to both the parties returnable 26/09/2011. Accordingly, as per endorsement dated 19/09/2011 office has sent notices to both the parties, but both parties are absent.
2. Since both the parties are absent, we perused the impugned judgement and we are finding that complainant was having mobile services from BPL Mobile Communications Ltd. He had taken connection on 08/02/1997 and connection was discontinued on 14/03/2002 by the opponent. The complainant challenged the disconnection by issuing notice and then by filing complaint bearing No.173/1997. Said complaint came to be settled between the parties with consent terms filed on 10/11/1997. Opponent/respondent herein agreed to give credit of `20,000/- to the complainant in the bill that would be drawn in favour of the complainant in respect of said mobile connection. The amount was to be adjusted till amount was fully consumed. Thereafter, opponent started giving credit to the complainant till amount of `20,000/- was exhausted. But, thereafter, opponent started issuing bill. However, complainant took disadvantage of the fact that in one of the statement issued to the complainant on 07/04/2001, opponent had wrongly and erroneously shown that amount of `20,000/- was still lying in his credit. This was the mistake committed by its computer and his credit of `20,000/- which was given in terms of settlement was already over and he should have paid to the services rendered. Appellant/complainant did not pay any heed and on the night of 14-15/03/2002 his mobile services were terminated. Again, he filed consumer complaint and claimed damages for loss of reputation, for loss of business, etc.
3. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum upon examining pleadings and affidavits of both the parties dismissed the complaint. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found that the complainant was trying to take disadvantage of the fact that one of the statement issued to the complainant by opponent-Company dated 07/04/2001 showed that the amount consumed by the complainant and credit given to the complainant was still existing and relying on this wrong entry, complainant refused to pay outstanding bill. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum therefore held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opponent-Company in issuing bill and in disconnecting the mobile service on finding that the complainant had not paid legitimate dues for the services rendered. On the whole, we are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is just, proper and sustainable in law. We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the org. complainant. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 26th September 2011.
