Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/378

IDEA CELLULAR Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

G RAMAN PILLAI - Opp.Party(s)

T L SREERAM

11 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 378/16

JUDGMENT DATED: 11.02.2020

PRESENT : 

SHRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH                                            : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI.RANJIT .R                                                          : MEMBER

 

1. Head of the Regional Office,

Idea Cellular Ltd., Mercy Estate,

2^nd floor, Ravipuram, M.G. Road,

Kochi-682 013.

                                                                                                : APPELLANTS

2. A2A Communications,

Opposite Union Bank,

Harippad-690 514.

 

(By Adv: Sri. V.S. Sunil Kumar & T.L. Sreeram)

 

            Vs.

 

1. G. Raman Pillai,

Thannickal, Thulamparambu Vadakku,

Mannarasala P.O, Haripad-690 514.

 

(R1 By Adv: Smt. Ranjini.R)

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

2. Federal Bank, Haripad Branch,

R/by Manager, Haripad Branch.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

SHRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER

Opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed this appeal against the order dated:30.3.2016  in CC.202/14 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha (for short the District Forum).  The District Forum by its order directed them to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation to the complainant. They were given liberty to realise the due bill amount from this amount and return the balance amount to the complainant.  They were further directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

2.      The case of the complainant is that he is working as broker of the Cochin Stock Exchange dealing with its business and financial advice with his office at Haripad.  For his daily use he obtained a mobile phone connection from M/s Escotel, which is later on merged with Idea Cellular Limited.  The complainant used to pay off the telephone bills at proper time without delay through bank cheques and so far no cheques were dishonoured.  While so the phone connection in his name was disconnected by the opposite parties without any cause or reason and without giving him notice even though he has remitted the telephone bills through cheque.  The opposite party without presenting the cheque for collection is alleged that he is a defaulter for phone bills for the month of February and April 2014.  Thereafter, he came to know that 3^rd opposite party dishonoured the cheque without sufficient reason.  The act of the opposite parties are illegal, unaffordable, and is detrimental to his business and defaming which caused and his goodwill in business.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint was filed.

3.      First and second opposite party filed version contending that, the opposite party had intimated the fact of dishonour of the cheques to the complainant over phone.  But the complainant never cared to clear the pending dues.  The allegation of the complainant that the two cheques issued  to the opposite party for Rs.1123/- for the bill generated during the month of February and another cheque for Rs.841/- for the bill generated during the month of April which was not submitted by the opposite parties to the bank is absolutely false.  The opposite party had submitted both cheques on time and the same was bounced due to technical reasons.  This was informed to the complainant over phone.  The opposite parties got the intimation from Bank regarding the cheque bounce on 5^th May 2014.  The same was communicated to the opposite parties on the next day itself.  Even though the complainant agreed to clear the due he failed to do so.  The complainant has filed the complaint in order to escape from his legal liability and to obtain illegal gain.  The complainant is bound to repay the amount due to this opposite party.

4.      The version of the 3^rd opposite party is that, complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party and opposite party has not received any consideration from the complainant in the matter.  The account number mentioned in the complaint, 100014559236 is non existing and does not relate to the complainant.  The alleged cheques were issued to another account, namely “M/s Share Deal” with account No.13960200121838.  The cheques were presented by one of the representatives of M/s Idea Cellular Franchisee for credit of the proceeds to the account of M/s Idea Cellular Limited.  As the account number of M/s Idea Cellular provided by the representative was not correct, the 3^rd opposite party forwarded the cheques, to the office of the M/s Idea Cellular, Ernakulam requesting correct account number for crediting the amount.  The first opposite party neither submitted the correct account number nor retransmitted the subject cheques for realisation.  As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in the matter.  Opposite party has not dishonoured the cheques for the reason of deficiency of balance in the account and no letter of dishonour of the subject cheques were issued.  The opposite party states that no complaint has been ever made to the 3^rd opposite party in the matter of dishonour of cheques.  The allegation that the complainant has sustained mental agony and business loss due to disconnection of the telephone etc. are false and hence denied.  No loss was ever sustained by the complainant as alleged.

5.      Evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and his documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A6.  The first opposite party gave oral testimony as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on his side.  The 3^rd opposite party was examined as RW2.

6.      The District Forum appreciating the materials produced and considering the rival contentions concluded that the disconnection of the mobile phone of the complainant without giving prior notice, amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.  Therefore the opposite parties were held liable to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation to the complainant.  However they were given liberty to realise due bill amount from it and to return the balance amount to the complainant.   They were also given direction to give reconnection to the phone within one month from the date of order.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 along with 3^rd opposite party were further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as costs of the proceedings.

7.      Aggrieved by this order opposite parties 1 and 2 has filed this appeal.

8.      Heard both counsel and perused the records.  The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the cheques issued by the complainant were duly presented by the opposite parties and the same got dishonoured by the 3^rd opposite party.  The said fact of the bouncing of the cheque was duly informed to the complainant on the very next date.  The complainant agreed to make payment for the monthly bills, but he failed to do so.  The complainant is bound to repay the amount due to the opposite parties.   They have not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice.  As a service provider opposite parties/appellants are entitled to disconnect the connection against the refusal to clear bills by the customer.  The appellants have only exercised the lawful rights in the matter of providing connection.  Hence direction of the Forum to pay compensation and costs is unfair illegal and unreasonable and prays for setting aside the order.  The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that opposite parties disconnected the connection without giving any information or sending any notice.  The phone was disconnected without giving any prior notice which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2.  Due to the disconnection of the mobile phone, even though he has given the cheque for the bill amount, caused much mental agony to the complainant for which he has to be adequately compensated, and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

9.      It is admitted that Ext.A1 cheque and Ext.A4 cheques were dishonoured when presented with the 3^rd opposite party, bank.  According to the contentions of the bank, the 3^rd opposite party, the Account Number of the Idea Cellular Limited provided by the representative of the opposite party was not correct, for crediting the amount and hence they have sent letter requesting to correct the account number of the first opposite party and that was not done.  It has come out in evidence that the account number of Idea Cellular Private Limited printed in the bills ie Ext.A1 and A2 are that of Ext.A3 and Ext.A4 cheques are one and the same.  It can be thus found that the cheques  in dispute when presented to the bank got dishonoured only to the negligence of the 3^rd opposite party.  There is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2/appellants.  For the negligence on the part of the 3^rd opposite party, opposite parties 1 and 2 /appellants  should not be held liable.  It is also come out in evidence that the complainant had received a message from the opposite parties 1 & 2 that the disputed cheques were dishonoured.   The complainant had further deposed that he has not paid the bill due even though he was informed by the opposite parties 1 & 2 that the cheque for the bill amount got dishonoured.  He has also stated that he do not pay the future bills also.   The complainant further admits since he do not pay the bills, the opposite party had at first disconnect the mobile phone and it was later restored since the complainant had assured to pay the bill amount.  It has also come out in evidence that the opposite party again terminated the connection only when the complainant failed to pay the bills for which the cheques were issued and also did not pay the future bills.  It is admitted by the complainant that opposite parties had returned the dishonoured cheques in question.  In the above circumstances it cannot be stated that the opposite parties 1 and 2/appellants committed any deficiency of service.  They have only exercised their lawful right in the matter of providing connection.  For the fault of the 3^rd opposite party in dishonouring the cheques even though there was no fault in the cheques, the appellants cannot be fastened with liability.  The above acts cannot be attributed as deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2/appellants.

10.    In the light of the above we find that the District Forum went wrong in finding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2/appellants.  Thus the order of the District Forum is liable to be setaside as against the appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2.  We do so.

In the result the appeal is allowed.  The order of the District Forum as against opposite parties 1 and 2 in CC.202/14 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha is set aside.  Parties to suffer their respective costs.

Refund Rs.4000/- the statutory amount deposited by the appellants to them on filing proper application.

 

T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

RANJIT .R : MEMBER

 

VL.