THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.266/2016

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2019

(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.              :  President)

                                                                        Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B.       :  Member

                                                                        Smt. Priya S., BBL, LLB, MBA          :  Member

ORDER

Present: Hon’ble Sri. Joseph Mathew, Member:             

This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Sainaba Granites, Tharippamala Kozhikode. His case is that he had taken a post-paid mobile connection of the 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party vide mobile No. 9544205312 in the year 2015 for his business purpose. He was promptly paying the bill amount without fault and not a defaulter of bill payments. While so on 05/06/2016 the 1^st opposite party disconnected his phone connection without any prior information. Though he had approached the opposite parties several times for reinstating the connection, there was no use. It is informed by the opposite party that an amount of Rs.500/- is due to them and that is why they had disconnected the connection. It is stated that no amount is due towards the opposite parties as alleged and in fact he is having a credit limit upto Rs.5,200/- as offered by the opposite parties.

            It is further stated that he had contacted the 1^st opposite party personally for a letter stating that there was Rs.500/- due towards the bill amount from him but they were not provided him such a letter. Since he is doing the business of supplying granites stones and powder, the mobile is very much in need and his business transactions are entirely depend on the said mobile number given to the customers, workers and also around 40 numbers of lorry drivers for contacting him. Due to the unexpected disconnection of the mobile service for no reason he had suffered much mental stress and strain and huge business loss also. He is willing to pay any genuine bill amount but the demand for Rs.500/- as due is not genuine or correct. Now the opposite parties are showing a detached attitude towards him in reinstating his connection. Due to the disconnection of the mobile he has to use his departmental telephone for making even local calls which also caused four times the expenses he would have incurred to pay to the cell phone. His request for reinstating the connection permanently and settle the dispute was not accepted by the opposite parties. The disconnection of his mobile connection without any sufficient reason and thereby causing hardships and financial loss to him even though he is not a defaulter of bill payments amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this petition is filed to direct the opposite parties to pay him a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for his business loss and mental agony and other harassments suffered and also cost of the proceedings.

            The opposite parties filed a combined version. It is admitted that the petitioner is a customer holding a post-paid connection of the 1^st opposite party but it is stated that this petition is not maintainable as per Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and hence it is to be dismissed in-limini. It is stated that the petitioner has been uninterruptedly enjoying their services till 10/06/2016 when the connection was temporarily barred due to non-payment of bill amount for the month May, 2016. The petitioner was coming under the Bill Cycle for 15^th day of every month ie., the bills for the previous 30 days are generated on the 15^th day of each month which are required to be settled within 15 days. Accordingly they have served the bill for Rs.1,516.37 for the month of May 2016 and the same has to be settled by 30^th May 2016. However the petitioner had paid only Rs.980/- towards that bill on 30^th May 2016 and defaulted the balance amount of Rs.536.37. Owing to the default on the part of the petitioner in settling dues, his connection was selected for temporary disconnection means barring certain selected services like calls to other networks etc. prior to the disconnection on 10/06/2016. This has been intimated to the petitioner through SMS and calls also. Despite several intimations the petitioner had refused to settle the dues amounts and so the service were fully barred on 13/06/2016.

It is also admitted that, they had permitted a credit limit of Rs.5,200/- to the petitioner but it is stated that the credit limit is a facility to regulate the usage of the customer within the Bill Cycle and the same has no significance in respect of the arrears on any past bill cycle. It would not be heard to say that, in view of the credit limit, they should have kept the connection active despite the failure on the part of the petitioner to pay off the bills which is legitimately due from him for all such subsequent bill period till the arrears reach the amount of Rs.5,200/-. The 1^st opposite party had duly communicated to the petitioner the reason for the disconnection and it is wholly imprudent to imagine that the 1^st opposite party being a private sector telecom service provide company, would for any reason prefer to loss a customer who as claimed by himself was a regular and esteemed customer on flimsy and frivolous ground.

It is further stated that they had inclined to reinstate the connection of the petitioner and had duly suggested him to settled the bills but in spite of their instructions the petitioner had filed this complaint before this Forum demanding compensation only with the malafide intent to abscond from the legitimate liabilities on his part and to escape from the legal proceedings from their side for the recovery of the dues. All other allegation of the petitioner was specifically denied by the opposite parties as not true or correct. There is no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service on their side as alleged and the petitioner has not suffered any loss or mental agony due to any of their acts and so prayed to dismiss the petition with a direction to the petitioner to remit the dues towards them.

The matters for determinations are:

1.  Whether this petition is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3. Reliefs and costs if any?

Evidence consists of the affidavits filed by both the petitioner and the opposite parties, Ext. A1 to A4, B1 and deposition of PW1, the petitioner.

Point No. 1: : The opposite parties have a specific case that this petition is not maintainable before this Forum since as per Section7B of India Telegraph Act 1885 this complaint is to be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Govt. They filed an I.A. 458/2016 for deciding the maintainability question. Since Consumer Protection Act is in addition to the laws existing at present the Fora found that the petitioner is having the right to file this petition before this Fora also and hence that I.A. was dismissed finding that this petition is maintainable. So this aspect is not discussing further.

Point No. 2: According to the petitioner he is not a defaulter of bill payment and there was no dues towards any bill amount issued by the opposite parties. Moreover he is having a credit-limit of Rs.5,200/- offered by the opposite parties. Even then the opposite parties had disconnected his mobile service on 05/06/2016 without any sufficient reason or prior intimation. The said act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their side which caused much mental harassment and other hardships to him apart from the huge business loss suffered. So the opposite parties are bound to make good his losses.

            But according to the opposite parties the connection was disconnected for non-payment of the balance amount of Rs.536.37 towards the bill amount of Rs.1516.37 dated 15/05/2016. It is submitted that the petitioner was under the Bill Cycle for 15^th day of every month. Accordingly the bill amount of the petitioner for the Bill Cycle 16^th April to 15^th May 2016 was Rs.1516.37 which is to be paid by 30^th Many 2016. The petitioner had paid only Rs.980/- towards this bill on 30/05/2016 and defaulted the balance amount of Rs.536.37. Even after information through SMS and calls the petitioner has not settled that amount and so they barred certain service on 10/06/2016. Even then the said amount was pending due and so the connection was fully barred on 13/06/2016. The opposite parties produced the copy of the said bill dated 15, May 2016 and was marked Ext. B1. Though the petitioner had alleged that Ext. B1 is a fake document, in cross examination he admitted that Ext. B1 is the copy of bill issued to him. He also deposed that the last payment made on 30/05/2016 was Rs.980/-. From this statement it is clear that a balance amount of Rs.536.37 is pending dues as stated by the opposite parties. According to the petitioner he had got a credit-limit of Rs.5,200/- offered by the opposite parties at the time of disconnecting his service and so the disconnection due to the reason that Rs.536.37 is pending dues is not fair or admissible.

Admittedly the petitioner got a credit-limit of Rs.5,200/- but the opposite parties made clear that the grant of credit-limit is only an internal arrangement and facility intended to regulate the usage of a customer within the Bill Cycle to ensure uninterrupted service upto Rs.5,200/- during the prevailing bill cycle and is not intended to adjust the arrears till it reaches Rs.5,200/-. The arrears has to be cleared within the bill date in every bill cycle.

So from the evidence it is found that the petitioner had misunderstood the meaning of credit-limit and he was under the wrong belief that the opposite parties will adjust the arrear amounts in his credit-limit but actually the credit-limit of Rs.5200/- has no significance in respect of arrears. Here the petitioner’s bill amount for the period from 15^th April 2016 to 14^th May 2016 was Rs.1,518.55 as per Ext. B1 and the due date for payment was 30^th May 2016. The amount payable after due date was given as Rs.1,618.55 in Ext. B1. Admittedly the petitioner had made only Rs.980/- towards that bill amount on 30/05/2016 means a balance amount of Rs.638.55 was pending arrears. The connection was partly disconnected on 10/06/12016. But even then the petitioner has not cleared the arrears and that is why his service was fully disconnected by the opposite parties on 13/06/2016. Since the opposite parties have disconnected the petitioner’s mobile service as per their rules, we cannot attribute any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as alleged by the petitioner. Point No. 2 found against the petitioner.

Point No. 3: In view of the findings in Point No. 2, we are of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed and the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the petition.

            In the result, this petition is dismissed. Parties will bear their cost.

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2019

Date of filing: 23/06/2016

                           SD/-PRESIDENT                SD/-MEMBER

 APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Bill dated 15/04/2016 issued by the opposite party

A2. Cash receipt dated 30/05/2016

A3. Copy of Dealer’s Licence

A4. Notice issued by the opposite party

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

B1. Copy of bill dated 15/05/2016

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. Paryayi (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None                                                           

Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT