Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Member:
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 13.12.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Aurangabad in Consumer Complaint No.126/1999.
(2) The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:
The Complainant had filed consumer complaint praying compensation from the Opponents for the illegal disconnection of the mobile phone on 23.03.1999. The compensation claimed is `50,000/- for the loss of reputation and `30,000/- for the mental torture.
The Complainant had purchased instrument of Phillips twist model through Original Opponent No.1 for an amount of `12,720/-. After the installation of the said telephone he was given bills which were excess in amount. The Complainant had taken the bills to Opponent No.3 for correction, however, no corrections were made. The Complainant lodged complaint in respect of irregularities committed with Opponent Nos.1 and 2. However, instead of removing the irregularities the Opponents have discontinued incoming calls on 23.03.1999 and outgoing calls were disconnected from 04.05.1999. Despite the fact that the complainant paid the bills regularly, the telephone connection was disconnected and hence, he has filed this complaint.
(3) Opponents contested the complaint contending that only once the Opponent has issued an excess bill, however, subsequently the corrections were made. They further contended that they have disconnected the incoming and outgoing calls from 28.04.1999 as the Complainant failed to pay the bills. They further contended that still an amount of `2,055/- is due from the Complainant. They further requested that there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence, the complaint may please be dismissed.
(4) The District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the Opponents, evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and the pleadings of their Counsels arrived at conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents and allowed the complaint partly directing the Opponents to waive outstanding bill of `2,055.65 and give the rebate of `1,000/- in the future bills. Aggrieved by this order the original Complainant has filed this appeal.
(5) We heard Advocate Ms.Anita Marathe, for the Appellant and Advocate Ms.Madhu Mehta, Advocate proxy for M/s.India Law Alliance for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
(6) On 21.09.2011 the Ld.Counsel for the Appellant had promised to file all the papers which were on the file of the District Forum. However, she has not filed the papers. We have gone through the order passed by the District Forum. The District Forum observed that there is an application made by the Opponents wherein the original Opponents had shown their readiness to waive the outstanding bills and to activate the mobile service of the Complainant. Relying on this letter the District Forum had ordered to waive outstanding amount of `2,055.65 and awarded the rebate of `1,000/- in future bills. Whatever the deficiency the District Forum observed on the part of original Opponents/Respondents the District Forum had given a relief to the Complainant/Appellant. The present appeal is filed for enhancement of the award. However, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that the Appellant deserves any enhancement in the award passed by the District Forum. The order passed by the District Forum is just and proper. We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the original Complainant/Appellant. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) The order of the District Forum is hereby confirmed.
(iv) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 24th November, 2011.
