By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

 

            The complainant availed a mobile connection from the opposite party on 2-12-04. The complainant was always ready and willing to pay the bills issued by the opposite parties. The complainant also had NSD and ISD facilities. On 22-12-04 without any reason or prior intimation the opposite parties had unilaterally withdrawn the ISD and STD facilities. Complainant immediately contacted the opposite parties. Opposite parties intimated that his bill amount had crossed Rs.2000/- and hence the ISD and STD facilities were suspended. The complainant had questioned about this act of opposite party. Opposite party ascertained that a SMS message warning withdrawal of ISD and STD was sent to complainant. The complainant did not receive any such message. The opposite parties had taken an adamant attitude. The complainant was running a business and hence he required the ISD and STD facilities, he had gone to the opposite party’s office to pay the bill on 27-12-04. To the utter disbelief of the complainant he was informed that the amount payable was Rs.4500/-. As the complainant wanted the restoration of ISD facility, as his business was suffering, after many arguments complainant was constrained to pay the demanded amount. Complainant paid Rs.5000/- but even then the opposite parties delayed in restoring ISD connection.   When the actual bill was received by the complainant on 10-1-05 the complainant was surprised and shocked to see that the amount due and payable by him was only Rs.1964/-. Due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties the complainant had to suffer both financially and mentally. The ISD and STD facilities of the complainant were improperly suspended which caused much loss and injury to the complainant. Hence complainant had filed the complaint seeking relief as compensation for the loss, injury and hardships caused to the complainant on account of the negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties.

 

            Opposite parties filed version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Opposite party admits that the complainant had availed mobile phone connection of opposite party on 2-12-04. There was no deficiency on the part of opposite parties. The opposite party had allotted the complainant a credit limit of Rs.2000/-. On an inadvertent mistake on the part of the accounts side of the opposite party the information that the complainant has exceeded his credit limit is passed to the complainant through SMS and his ISD and STD is barred. The amount paid by the complainant was properly credited in complainant’s account and amount already paid by the complainant is being properly adjusted to his bills. The compensation claimed by the complainant is without any basis. Hence opposite party prays to dismiss the petition.

 

            The points for consideration is(1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief, if so what is the quantum.

 

            PW1 was examined and Ext.A1 to A6 were marked on complainant’s side.   No oral evidence on opposite parties’ side and Ext.B1 was marked on opposite parties’ side.

 

Point No.1:

 

            The case of the complainant is that he was a subscriber of telephone service of the opposite party. Opposite party had improperly without any intimation suspended the STD and ISD connections of the complainant. The complainant was given a credit limit of Rs.2000/-. The opposite parties had negligently informed the complainant that he had crossed Rs.2000/- limit. The complainant was forced by the opposite party to pay double amount of Rs.4000/-. But the bill dated 10-1-05 sent by the opposite parties shows that the bill amount was only Rs. 1964.82. Complainant was made to pay Rs.5000/-. The complainant alleges negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for barring his STD and ISD connections without any basis. Ext.A5 produced by the complainant shows that the opposite party had informed the complainant on 10-3-05 regarding the wrong billing done by the opposite party. Opposite party had admitted in Ext.A5 that a human error had occurred due to which the complainant was informed of a wrong bill. Opposite party had apologized and also informed that they have corrected the extra amount paid by the complainant and credited in complainant’s account.   In the version also opposite party has admitted that a human error had occurred. Ext.A5 also shows that the opposite party had admitted their negligence and apologizes to the complainant. In our opinion there was negligence caused on the part of opposite party. Point No.1 is thus proved.

 

Point No.2:

 

            As the Forum has seen that there was a slight negligence on the part of opposite parties, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for a relief. It has come out from the evidence and arguments that a slight human error had occurred on the part of the opposite parties. Due to this negligence the complainant had suffered mental agony. But when the opposite party found out their mistake they were ready to rectify immediately. So in our opinion the compensation sought by the petitioner is an exorbitant one comparing to the negligence of opposite party. It does not mean that the opposite party is let free. When opposite parties accept consideration and promise to do service to their customers they should be more vigilant and take care not to cause financial loss or mental agony to their customers. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.5000/- as compensation.

 

            In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation and an amount of Rs.500/- as cost within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the day of 12th May 2010.

                       

            SD/ -PRESIDENT                   SD/- MEMBER           SD/- MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

 

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. copy of letter dt,. 15-2-05. sent by the complainant to the opposite party.

A2. e-mail message (Print out) dt. 15-2-05.

A3. e-mail message (Print out) dt. 16-2-05.

A4. e-mail message (Print out) dt. 28-2-05.

A5. Photocopy of Reply notice dt. 10-3-05.

A6. Copy of Regd. Lawyer notice with ack. Dt. 10-6-05.

 

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

B1. Photocopy of Customer application Form dt. 2-12-04.

 

Witness examined for the complainant:

 

PW1. V.V. Muhammad Ali ( Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party.

                None.

 

                                                                        Sd/- President

                                    // True copy //

 

(Forwarded/By order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.