DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,FATEHGARH SAHIB.
Consumer Complaint No. : 73 of 2017
Date of Institution : 07.11.2017
Date of Decision: : 18.02.2019
Anoop Kumar Sood S/o Shri Raj Kumar Sood, R/o House No.79, Sector 4-D, Shashtri Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
…Complainant
Versus
- Idea Cellular Limited, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase – 7, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab – 160055, through its Chairman/CMD.
- Dev Karan C/o Angrish Steel Sales, Shop No.50, Sector – 20, Block – B, Near Union Bank of India, Motia Khan, Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 to 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986
QUORUM:
SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
SH.INDERJIT, MEMBER
CAPT.YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER
ARGUED BY:
Sh.S.K. Garg, Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Anwar Hussian, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1
OP-2 Ex parte
ORDER
KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
1 Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 11 to 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs) on the ground that he obtained two postpaid mobile phone connection vide connection Nos. 7270018000 and 9169918000 from OPs and he is using both the above said mobile phone connection and regularly depositing the monthly consumption bills of said connections. OP raised last bill vide invoice No.PBP00002961608 dated 05.10.2017 for Rs.597.53 against one mobile No.93699-18000 and vide invoice No.PBP0002950441 dated 05.10.2017 for Rs.472.63 against second mobile No.72700-18000. Both these bills were due for payment on 20.10.2017. Complainant paid/deposited the amount of bills on 06.10.2017 through account payee cheque No.693242 dated 06.10.2017 amounting to Rs.1071/- against demand of Rs.1070.16. The billing plan of both the connections is monthly basis. There is no previous amount of any bill due or recoverable from the complainant. However, OPs stopped the outgoing facility of phone No.72700-18000 w.e.f. 22.10.2017 without any reason. Complainant immediately approached OPs to know the reason for debarring, who informed the complainant that the outgoing services of the said mobile have been debarred due to non-payment of bill/invoice dated 05.10.2017for Rs.472.63 due on 20.10.2017. The complainant informed OPs that he has already deposited the said bill on 06.10.2017 through account payee to OP-2, but despite that OPs failed to continue the outgoing services of mobile No.72700-18000 which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of OPs. Complainant also lodged complaint through service request/communication ID No.C1-101145889584 to OP-1 through OP-2. The complainant prayed that outgoing services of said mobile No.72700-18000 of complainant are liable to be restored and hence complaint of complainant be allowed and OPs be directed to restore/continue outgoing service to the mobile connection bearing No.72700-18000 and also pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of harassment.
2 The complaint is contested by OP No.1 who has filed written version taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint as it is vexatious, baseless, misconceived and is an abuse of process of law. Complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Complaint is not maintainable. On merits, Ops admitted that the complainant has got two mobile numbers as mentioned in complaint. OP submitted that complainant deposited one cheque for Rs.1071/- dated 06.10.2017 in order to discharge his liability for both aforesaid mobile numbers. OPs submitted further that one of the mobile number mentioned on backside of cheque was not clear due to which the cheque collecting agency updated the amount of Rs.473/- against invalid number and not against mobile number 72700-18000 of complainant. After denying other averments in the complaint OP-1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3 OP No.2 failed to appear and hence, was proceeded against ex parte.
4 To prove his case, counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, true copies of documents i.e. bill dated 05.10.2017 Ex.C-2, receipts dated 09.10.2017 Ex.C-3, bill dated 05.10.2017 Ex.C-4, copy of cheque dated 06.10.2017 Ex.C-5, Bank account statement Ex.C-6, Emails Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-16 and then closed the evidence. Counsel for OP-1 also tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Manoj Madan as Ex.OP-1 and attested copy of power of attorney Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.
5 We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through written arguments of complainant and also gone through the record carefully.
6 From pleading of the parties and produced documentary evidence there remains no doubt that mobile connection No.72700-18000 was availed by complainant. Even if complainant has not given the dates of debarring or of approaching OPs for complaining against debarring, despite that Ops in their written statement specifically pleaded that the said mobile was debarred temporarily due to payment not updated by OPs. Technicalities cannot be allowed to stand in the way of administration of justice to a consumer because the consumer Protection Act is a welfare legislation enacted for safeguarding the interests of the consumer. So in case facts disclosing cause of action decipherable from the material produced on record, then the same is no ground for dismissing the complaint merely because of non-mention of the dates reflecting accrual of cause of action in the complaint. As OP-1 himself has pleaded that in view of the non-updating the amount, debar of outgoing calls took place and as such this fact is enough to hold that cause of action accrued to complainant for filing this complaint particularly when it is claimed by complainant that barring of outgoing has taken place without intimation to him and without issue of any instructions by him. Being so the complaint is within limitation.
7 It is contended by counsel for OP-1 that courts at SAS Nagar (Mohali) alone has jurisdiction because of the agreement for getting the dispute settled from those courts. Though, it is contended that the said clause is contained in the proposal form, but said proposal form has not been produced on record. The produced documents by OP do not at all show about existence of any agreement between parties for getting the dispute settled from Courts situated at Mohali alone. So this argument of counsel for OP-1 is without basis. Rather the mobile connection in question was used to complainant in area of District Fatehgarh Sahib and as such he suffered loss due to debar of outgoing calls within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. So this Forum certainly has jurisdiction.
8 It is also contended by counsel for OP-1 that as per claim of complainant the mobile services were availed by him as a industrialist and as such complainant is not a consumer. That submission of counsel for OP-1 has no force in it because if the mobile services availed by complainant as industrialist, then virtually these services were availed by complainant for earning his livelihood, by use of the mobile. As and when services availed by a consumer as professional for earning livelihood, then he will be entitled to the protection of Consumer Protection Act, being a consumer in view of Section 2(d) of the Act. So submissions of counsel for OP-1 has no force that complainant cannot be treated as a consumer.
9 However, bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 issued by OPs in that respect has been produced for showing that complainant had been paying the monthly bills regularly.
10 The complainant had paid the bill of mobile phone in question regularly. The OP has also admitted that amount was paid by complainant but it was not updated in their system so the connection was debarred. So deficiency in service on part of OP is admitted one, particularly when they have debarred the outgoing calls of mobile number in question. Even after payment of the bill it is also apparent that due to debarring of outgoing calls, complainant might have suffered mental agony and harassment. If the number was not legible they could have approached complainant through second mobile number mentioned on back side of the cheque.
11 Sequel to above discussions, this complaint is partly allowed and OPs are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for mental harassment of complainant and litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- and Rs 2000/- to be deposited in the legal aid fund of the District forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 04.02.2019 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Pronounced: Dated: 18.02.2019
(Inderjit) (Capt.Yuvinder Singh Matta) (Kuljit Singh)
Member Member President
