By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The complainant’s case is that the complainant is a reputed and well known lawyer practicing in Thrissur District Court and various other courts through out Kerala. Besides he was the former State General Secretary of Youth Congress (I). He is very busy both in his profession as well as in the political field. He is a subscriber of the mobile phone connection of the respondents since 1999. His phone number is 9847154585. The complainant used to pay his phone bills promptly and regularly. Unfortunately petitioner failed to pay bill bearing invoice No.0006061708 for the period 21.4.07 to 20.5.07 on due date 5.6.07, since he was out of station in connection with his profession. So he sought time for making payment and thereafter as demanded by 3rd respondent he paid Rs.3000/- on 13.6.07 at 11 A.M. In spite of that the respondents disconnected the out going facility at 4 p.m. on the very same day. So he was put to great trouble. On 27.6.07 the complainant had caused to issue lawyer notices to the respondents. The 2nd respondent issued a friendly letter to complainant on 16.7.07 a waiver of Rs.300/- has been passed in the complainant’s account. There is deficiency in service from respondents. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter of respondents is to the effect that it is true that the complainant is a customer of these respondents. The customer had used his mobile and the bill for usage for the period 21.4.07 to 20.5.07 issued to the customer on 21.5.07. The complainant was supposed to pay the due amount on or before 5.6.07 which the complainant failed to pay. The due date provided is for payment of charges and the customer needs to ensure payment within the due date. The company despite the due date being 5th has given additional payment days till 13th. Since the bill was not paid within the stipulated time the officers of these respondents contacted him and requested for payment. It is not true to say that these respondents have barred the out going connection at 4 p.m. on 13.6.07. On going through the records it is evident that the complainant has made calls even after 5 p.m. on the same day. The waiver has been given as a goodwill gesture and taking into consideration the history of the complainant. There was no deficiency in service. Hence dismiss.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Was there any deficiency in service from respondents?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Exts.P1 to P6. No evidence is adduced by respondents.
5. Points: The complaint is filed against disconnection of mobile connection despite the payment of bills amount.
6. It is the case of complainant that the complainant being a man of busy was out of station in connection with his profession on 5.6.07, which was the due date for payment of phone charges for the period 21.4.07 to 20.5.07. It is the case of complainant that since he was out of station he sought time for making payment and as demanded by 3rd respondent he paid Rs.3000/- on 13.6.07 at 11 a.m. It is his case that even if he has paid the bill amount on 13.6.07 at 11 a.m. the respondents disconnected the out going facility at 4 p.m. on the very same day. So the complainant stated that he has suffered much mental agony.
7. The respondents taken the view that the due date provided in the bill is for payment of charges and the customer needs to ensure his payment within the due date and not wait for the last date. The company stated that the company has given additional payment days till 13th despite the due date being 5th. It is further stated that the company has not disconnected the out going facility at 4 p.m. on 13.6.07 and on going through the records of the calls made by the complainant it is evident that complainant has made calls even after 5 p.m. on the same day.
8. It is the defence of respondents that they did not bar the out going facility as stated by complainant and as per call records it can be seen that on 13.6.07 the complainant has made calls at 5 p.m. It is to be noted that there is no evidence adduced by respondents. No records produced by them to show that the complainant had made calls at 5 p.m. on 13.6.07.
9. The complainant produced Ext. P1 series to P6 documents out of which Ext. P1 series are the bills issued. The call records are seen from Ext. P1 series and there nothing to show the calls during the disputed period. The lawyer notice and reply from Idea is produced and there is no justification and also no whisper about the disconnection.
10. The complainant alleging disconnection of out going facility on his mobile phone by respondents on 13.6.07 at 5 p.m. It is true that the respondents failed to adduce any evidence. The complainant also did not adduce any evidence to prove the same. But without such a disconnection he will not approach the Forum. In the circumstances he is entitled to get only a nominal amount as compensation. He also failed to prove the hardship caused to him.
11. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupee three thousand only) as compensation with costs Rs.750/- (Rupees seven hundred and fifty only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 28th day of November 2011.
