Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/234/2016

Shiv Kumar Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, IDEA Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

In person

08 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	234 OF 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	3.4.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	8.11.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Shiv Kumar Sood (Distt. Attorney Retd.) Advocate S/o late Sh. Badri Parshad Sood R/o H. No. 3139, Sector 23D, Chandigarh.

 

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. Manager Idea Mobiles SCO No. 495-96, Sector 35, Chandigarh.
2. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sector 23, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  

 

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA                PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA          MEMBER

 

 

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1	:	Ms. Rameet Bakshi, Adv.
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that according to the complainant, he is using the mobile connection of OP No.1 for the last more than 15 years.  The monthly payment of the bill is being made by OP No.2 as per the instructions of the complainant and from the very beginning the bill is being sent by the OP No.1 to OP No.2.    It is pleaded that on 25.2.2016 the mobile connection of the complainant was disconnected by OP No.1 without giving any notice/message disclosing the reasons for the said disconnection owing to which the complainant who is a Advocate by profession has to undergo a lot of harassment and discomfort.  On enquiry from OP No.1 it came out that since OP No.2 has declined the payment of the bill, therefore, the connection was disconnected.  Thereafter the complainant paid the payment of Rs.500/- towards the bill. The complainant contacted OP No.2 who admitted non payment of the bill in question by the bank but could not assign any reason as to why it did not pay the bill.  The complainant lodged complaint with both the OPs in this regard.  In the month of March, 2016 the complainant again received a message from PP-Idea that payment of Rs.817/- has declined by your bank.  On receiving the message the complainant paid the bill amount.  The complainant approached OP No.2 to know the reason as to why it did not pay the bill amount but OP No.2 could not explain the reason and directed to the complainant to approach the sponsoring users department for knowing the exact reason/fate of the Ecs being sponsored by them  and showed their inability to inform the reason of the non-payment. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2  despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 25.05.2016.
3.      Opposite Party No.1 while admitting the factual matrix of the cased stated that the  disputed payment of Rs.470.80 of the bill amount was declined by the bank of the complainant due to the reason “ No such account”.   It is asserted that due to the decline of the ECS payment, the complainant was sent an SMS on 18.2.2016 from PP-Idea by the Idea Cellular Ltd. which requested him to provide new ECS form and one cancelled cheque to continue with ECS payment mode.  However, the complainant did not pay heed to the above message and did not approached the company. The amount of Rs.470.80P already credited by the company on 16.2.2016 was reserved on 24.2.2016. Thus due to the non-payment of the bill dated 1.2.2016 with due date i.e. 16.2.2016 the outgoing services of the mobile number of the complainant were selectively barred on 25.2.2016 at 12.36:30 hours.   Thereafter the services were restored when the complainant paid an amount of Rs.500/- towards the bill amount.  It is alleged that the complainant concealed the fact he was also using another mobile number.  It is further stated that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint after signing the terms and conditions in the SAF with the company which states that the calls may be barred/suspended if the payment is not received or contact is not made. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.      The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.1.
5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
6.      We have heard the contesting parties and have perused the record carefully.
7.      From the documents adduced on record we find that the OP No.1 was receiving payment in the past through ECS mode. This factum has also been admitted by OP No.1.  It has also been admitted that the outgoing services were barred in a selective manner only for a span of approximately 42 minutes for which the complainant was never informed in advance by way any SMS or notice.  Though OP No.1 has placed on record Annexures R-4 and R-5 but these documents seem to be procured/created by the OP No.1 at their own comfort and cannot be relied upon as the same have no authenticity particularly when the complainant denied that he has not

 

received any notice from the OP No.1 regarding non-payment of bill and barring of call.  OP No.1 failed to produce on  record any legitimate  document showing that it had intimated the complainant in advance regarding non-payment of bill. Had it done so the complainant would have taken the issue with its bank i.e. OP No.2 through which payment of bills was being made to OP No.1 by ECS mode. Hence OP No.1  is held to be deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

8.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite  party No.1 is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed  to:-

 

[a]  To make payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

 

[b]  To make payment of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

 

9.     The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.[a] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

10.     Complaint against OP NO.2 is dismissed.

 

11.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

8.11.2016                                             sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER