Date of decision : 18.3.2008<br /> Dr.Surmeet Singh Mavi Surmeet Homeopathic Clinic, Ashok Nagar, Canal Road, Jalandhar.<br /> Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> 1. M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. C-25, Industrial Area, Phase-II, S.A.S. Nagar Mohali, (Pb.) through its Company Secretary.<br /> 2. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Kapurthala office, Opposite Old hospital, Amritsar Road, Kapurthala.<br /> Opposite parties.<br /> Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Quoram : Sh.A.K. Sharma President.<br /> Sh.Surinder Mittal, Member.<br /> Present : Sh. Kamaljit Singh counsel for complainant<br /> None for the opposite parties.<br /> JUDGMENT ) SH.A.K. SHARMA PRESIDENT.)<br /> Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by the complainant Dr.Surmeet Singh Mavi against opposite parties i.e. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, through its Company Secretary and M/s Bharti Airtel ltd. Kapurthala office Opposite Old hospital, Amritsar Road, Kapurthala for setting aside demand of Rs.891.86 paise being illegal, null and void in respect of post paid mobile connection No.9815904487 and also for monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service.<br /> 2. Gist of the complaint is that complainant obtained post paid mobile connection No.9815904487 from the opposite parties but the same was got disconnected by him on 23/11/06 and the entire outstanding amount at that time amounting to Rs.1730/- was deposited by him at its franchise/ office of the opposite party situated at Jyoti Chowk, Jalandhar. The said office also assured that that abovesaid mobile connection has been disconnected and no bill will be raised in future and entry to this effect was also incorporated in the computer. As his mobile connection was not working after 23/11/06 so there is no question of deposit of any amount. He was however, surprised to receive bill regarding some rental amount of period when the mobile connection was disconnected. He requested opposite parties to refrain from claiming any such amount and also issued notice on 9/3/07 but he was shocked to receive legal notice dated 10/4/07 issued by the opposite parties regarding above detailed amount which pertains to the period in which his mobile connection was disconnected. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared and controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. Preliminary objection has been raised that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as false complaint has been filed. On merits, this fact is admitted that mobile connection No.9815904487 was issued to the complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite parties received amount of Rs.1730 from the complainant in respect of mobile connection No.9815904487. It is denied that complainant deposited entire outstanding amount by way of Rs.1830/-. As per the records of the opposite parties, an amount of Rs.891.96/- is still outstanding against the complainant and same is still due and payable by him to the opposite parties. Statement of account and bills are annexed with the written statement for the period during which complainant ha used his mobile connection. Thus there i no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to 4.<br /> However, counsel for opposite parties made statement on 10/3/08 that he does not want to lead any evidence on behalf of opposite parties. Today neither neither opposite parties nor counsel present though evidence has been produced by the complainant.<br /> 5. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on the record.. There is affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, receipt ex.C2 for payment of amount of Rs.1730/- and also legal notice Ex.C3 sent by the opposite party dated 10/3/07 and also Ex.C4 another notice by the complainant to the opposite parties.. Complainant has reiterated his allegations in the affidavit Ex.C1 with regard to disconnection of mobile connection No.9815904487 on 23/11/06. He has also stated in his affidavit in para-7 that documents at Sr.No(a) to (h) were called from the opposite parties so as to enable him about his liability to pay bill of Rs.891.86P as referred to in the legal notice. Accordingly documents regarding entries of his mobile connection w.e.f. 1/10/06 esd s;dp vs;;rf but none of the documents was produced by the opposite parties nor even reply to the said application was filed by it and as such adverse inference can be drawn that if documents produced would go unfavourable to it. Moreover; defence plea about liability of payment of Rs.891/- after the date of disconnection is not substantiated with any document, Finding apparent deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, we are left with no alternative than to quash the demand of Rs.891/- raised through legal notice dated 10/4/07 and further award Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation payable by the opposite parties within a period of one month from today 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 /> 18.3.2008 Member President.<br /> <br />