Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Lakhbir Singh against opposite parties i.e. M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. Phase II Mohali through its Company Secretary and also other functionaries for quashing demand of opposite parties for recovery of Rs. 1392.83P with further direction not to charge any amount from him in connection with mobile connection in question after 27/8/2007 and also for monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. Brief facts in the complaint are that he obtained post paid mobile connection No. 9876052442 from the opposite party and same was got disconnected on 27/8/2007. He paid entire outstanding amount of Rs.2250/- at franchise office of the opposite party at opposite old hospital, Amritsar road, Kapurthala. The said office assured the complainant that said mobile connection has been disconnected and no bill would be raised in future and his mobile connection was also not working after 27/8/2007. He was however, shocked to receive legal notice dated 12/2/008 issued on behalf of opposite parties regarding some rental amount of period when mobile connection was disconnected. He visited the office of opposite party who have promised to withdraw the notice but so far no step has been taken in this regard. Therefore, there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of opposite party against which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite parties NO.2 and 3 failed to appear despite service and as such were proceeded exparte. Opposite party No.1 appeared and controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. Certain preliminary objections have been raised that complaint is frivolous and vexatious and that only Courts of Ropar has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties as per the subscriber enrolment form,. On merits this fact is admitted that complainant deposited amount of Rs.2250/- on 27/8/2007 against the outstanding dues of Rs. 2253.45Paise in respect of mobile connection No. 9876052442. The number of the complainant was auto unbarred on the receipt of payment on 28/8/2007 and as per the record maintained by the opposite party Company, his number was permanently disconnected w.e.f. 6/11/2007. As per the records, there was no usage after 27/8/2007 and the opposite party decided to waive off the rental charges. So there was no purpose to file the complaint and the matter could have been solved by the opposite party Company. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Company.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant Lakhbir Singh has produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.C1 to C3.<br /> 5. Opposite party did not lead any evidence vide statement recorded separately.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties . From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced thereon, controversy lies in a narrow compass as to whether there was any justification on the part of complainant in filing this complaint despite alleged plea of waiving off rental charges on mobile connection after 28/8/2007. Complainant has, no doubt, reiterated his allegations in the affidavit Ex.C1. There is also notice Ex.C2 dated 12/2/2008 issued by the opposite party Company and also payment of outstanding dues of Rs.2250/- by the complainant vide receipt Ex.C3.. There is no communication/letter from the side of opposite party Company to the complainant that rental charges for the period after intimation of mobile disconnection on 27/8/2007 was waived off which plea has been taken up now in the written statement by the Airtel Company. Therefore, complainant was genuinely aggrieved on receipt of notice Ex.C2 dated 12/2/2008 from the Company which compelled him to seek remedy in consumer Forum. Since Company has already taken decision to waive off rental charges for the period after mobile disconnection, so the demand vide notice Ex.C2 stands quashed with further direction to the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 2000/- as monetary compensation for mental agony and physical sufferings besides Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation payable within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. <br /> We do not find force in the contention of learned counsel for the opposite party Airtel Company that this Forum has no jurisdiction because mobile in question had been purchased by the complainant from the dealer of the Company at Kapurthala and as such cause of action has arisen at Kapurthala, so no clause in the contract/agreement can oust jurisdiction of this Forum when the purchased transaction of mobile took place at Kapurthala. <br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter fuile be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 19-8-2008 Member President.