DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No.32 of 3.2.2009 Decided on : 29.4.2009 <br /> <br /> Rajesh Kakkar working as Branch Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., SCO No. 5, First Floor, phase-1, Model Town, Opp. T.V Tower, Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.The Branch Manager, Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd., The Mall, Bathinda.<br /> 2.V.M Enterprises, Authorised agent of Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd., Street No. 6, Nai Basti, Bathinda.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. K.K Vinocha, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Exparte<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> DR. PHULINDER PREET, MEMBER:- <br /> 1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is working as Branch Manager with Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Bathinda. Opposite party No. 2 is authorized agency holder of Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. and having a branch office at Bathinda i.e. Opposite party No.1. Complainant got mobile connection No. 99889-21000 from the opposite parties with a credit limit of Rs.3,000/- and billing cycle 9th of every month to 8th of next month. He is using aforesaid connection for the last about four months and has been paying his monthly bills regularly. The due date of his bill for the month of October-November was 26.11.2008 and bill was for Rs.802/-. However, he deposited Rs.1,000/- well in time with the opposite parties. In this way, Rs. 198/- were paid in excess and were standing to his credit. On 13.12.2008, opposite party No.1 disconnected his mobile connection without giving any notice, prior intimation or providing an opportunity of being heard. He immediately talked about this illegality and deficiency in service with Customer Care of Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd., but he did not get any satisfactory reply. However, Customer Care Executive suggested him to visit Vodafone office at Bathinda for his problem. Accordingly, he approached opposite party No.1, but it did not solve his problem. Rather, he was told that reason for disconnection of the connection is non-payment of monthly bill as his billing cycle has been changed. It was a great surprise for him as he neither received any monthly bill nor credit limit of his bill had expired. He asserts that opposite parties have no right and authority to change his billing cycle at their own without his knowledge and prior notice. Complainant requested for issuance of duplicate copy of bill so that he can see the same before making the payment, but to his great surprise, it was told that duplicate copy of bill is not available and he has to deposit Rs.1613/- to activate his outgoing calls. He had to deposit the said sum under compelling circumstances though the same was not legally payable on 13.12.2008. His connection for outgoing calls remained disconnected for several hours and he could not talk to about 15 guys who are working under him. In fact, Rs.1,613/- were not payable by the complainant on 13.12.2008 and the same were payable on 26.12.2008. Therefore, he is entitled to get interest @ 12% on this amount from 13.12.2008 to 26.12.2008. After 2/3 days from 13.12.2008, complainant received bill from the opposite parties showing due date of payment as 26.12.2008 as in the same earlier cycle. In this way, he had been forced to deposit money on 13.12.2008 to activate his outgoing calls without any fault on his part. On 18.12.2008, a notice/letter was sent through UPC to opposite parties and Regional Head of opposite party No.1, but they did not give any reply. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short called the 'Act') seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him interest @ 12% P.A from 13.12.2008 to 26.12.2008 on Rs. 1,613/- and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and agony suffered by him.<br /> 2. Notice of the complaint was issued to both the opposite parties. Despite service of notice, no-one came present on their behalf, as such, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 9.3.2009. <br /> 3. In exparte evidence, complainant filed his own affidavit Ex.C.1 and also tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.7.<br /> 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at sufficient length and gone through the record minutely.<br /> 5. The learned counsel for the complainant Sh. K.K. Vinocha argued that his client enjoys the mobile connection No. 99889-21000 from opposite parties with a credit limit of Rs. 3,000/- and billing cycle of 9th of every month to 8th of next month. Complainant was in the regular use since last four months and was paying bills regularly. In the month of October-November, his due date was 26.11.2008 and bill Ex.C.2 was for Rs. 802/- for which he had deposited Rs. 1,000/- well in time with the opposite parties and Rs. 198/- stood advance in his credit. Surprisingly, on 13.12.2008, outgoing service of the mobile was disconnected without giving any notice or prior information. On approaching opposite parties, no satisfactory answer was given. However, Customer Care Executive suggested the complainant to visit Vodafone office at Bathinda. Accordingly, he approached opposite party No. 1 and explained his problem, but they also did not solve his problem. Rather, they told orally the reason of disconnection of service due to non-payment of monthly bills as his billing cycle has been changed. It was shocking to the complainant that he never made any request to change the monthly cycle nor credit limit of his bill has expired, but they have changed the cycle suo-motively without prior knowledge and notice to the user. The complainant requested the opposite parties to issue him the duplicate bill so that he can pay the same, but they refused even to issue the duplicate bill. So under compelling circumstances, he has to deposit Rs. 1,613/- to activate his outgoing calls. In this way, connection of the complainant remained disconnected for several hours and he could not work out his important meetings/official work as he is Manager and has a managerial control over 15 guys to whom he has to give valuable instructions and work plans. After about 2/3 days from 13.12.2008, complainants received bill from opposite parties showing the due date of payment as 26.12.2008 as in the same earlier cycle. In this way, complainant was unnecessarily forced to deposit money on 13.12.2008 to activate his outgoing calls without any fault on his part. He suffered great loss, mental tension and agony in performing his duties without any fault on his part. Rather, it is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, complainant is entitled to payment of compensation and costs from the opposite parties.<br /> 6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. The complainant has reiterated his version in the complaint in his affidavit Ex.C.1. He has also placed on file the copies of bills showing the cycle from 9th of current month to 8th of next month as Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.4 with a credit limit of Rs.3,000/- and due date of payment as 26th of every month. Complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties, copy of which is Ex.C.7, but it was never replied. In bill Ex.C.6, the billing period is from 9.12.2008 to 20.12.2008 and the due date of payment is 7.1.2009 and during this period on 13.12.2008 i.e. prior to the due date of payment, his connection was disconnected for non-payment of bills. In this bill, his current charges were Rs. 841.13, previous balance as Rs.1,613.75 and payment RS. 1,613. Photocopy of payment receipt Ex.C.5 gives strength to the version of the complainant that he had to deposit Rs. 1,613/- under compelling circumstances to revive his disconnected outgoing calls. The version of complainant is strengthened from bill Ex.C.6 that his billing cycle has been changed without his request or any prior notice and knowledge. As dynamic credit limit of the complainant was Rs.3,000/- and his outstanding bill was for Rs. 1,613/- and that bill was got deposited before the due date of payment i.e. 7.1.2009 in duress to activate his outgoing calls which were disconnected for several hours. This act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused botheration and agony to the complainant. It also justifies his version that he was compelled to deposit bill on 13.12.2008 while due date was 7.1.2009. In our view, the opposite parties changed the billing cycle without any prior notice, got deposited the amount before due date and compelled the complainant to deposit the amount on 13.12.2008 to get his outgoing calls activated. In these circumstances, no other conclusion can be arrived at than the one that barring of the outgoing facility of telecommunication of complainant was arbitrary and without just and reasonable cause. This act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part.<br /> 7. Second point of argument was interest from 13.12.2008 to 26.12.2008. It is settled law that from interest and compensation, one can be granted. We think it a fit case for compensation. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we assess it as Rs.1,000/-.<br /> 8. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 9. In the premises written above, complaint is partly accepted exparte against the opposite parties with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under:-<br /> ( i ) Pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as compensation under <br /> section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( ii ) Compliance of this order be made within one month from the <br /> date of receipt of its copy, failing which the amount <br /> of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 10. The copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> 29.4.2009 Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member