A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 521/2009 against C.D. 207/2007, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.
Between:
I. Sai Baba, S/o. Late Ramachandraiah
Age: 47 years, Advocate
R/o. 1-1-193/4/3
Opp. Lane of Allahabad Bank
Chikkadpally, Hyderabad-20. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
1. Reliance Infocom Ltd.
C/o. Terence Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Thane, Belapur Road,
Kopar Khairane,
Navi Mumbai-400 709
2. Reliance Infocom Ltd.
Regional Head Office: 6-3-1090/B
Munavar Chambers, 4th Floor
Adjacent to Lake Shore Towers
Rajbhavan Road, Hyderabad. *** Respondents/ Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. V.G.S. Rao
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. M. Srinivas.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an advocate practising in various courts. He took cell phone from the respondent in the month of March, 2003 and has been paying the bills regularly. While so, when the respondent had deactivated his phone in the month of April, 2005 illegally he filed C.D. 419/2005 wherein costs were awarded and the appeal is pending before the State Commission in F.A. No. 1690/2005. An interim direction has been given to restore the connection. However again it has disconnected the phone from 19.8.2006. He changed the plan for post-paid incoming free for life time by paying Rs. 991/- on 23.1.2006 wherein he will be entitled to incoming calls free for the life time. He has been paying the bills regularly. At any rate incoming calls cannot be de-activated. If there are any arrears it should recover by following proper procedure and claim before an appropriate forum. He sent his reconciliation statement on 22.1.2005 showing that he was not in arrears, however, the respondent did not give any reply. The respondent disconnected the phone on 6.2.2007 without assigning any reason. Due to disconnection he was unable to contact his clients, advocates and unable to see the cause list of High Court through internet by using the phone, and loss of prestige and reputation in the society, client, colleagues and friends besides suffering mental agony and loss of income. Therefore assailing the disconnection against the principles of natural justice he filed the complaint to declare the action of respondent as illegal, and arbitrary besides compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs towards mental agony, loss of prestige etc.
3) The respondents resisted the case. While denying each and every allegation made in the complaint it alleged that the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Clause 9 (1) of the Customer Application Form (CAF) prescribes the jurisdiction of courts at Mumbai. It alleged that when the complainant was in arrears in payment his phone was disconnected for which he filed C.D No. 419/2005 which was disposed of by holding that the complainant was not entitled to any compensation except costs of Rs. 500/-. The State Commission did not restrain the complainant from paying the dues. As per bill dt. 1.8.2006 he had to pay Rs. 7,647/- as on 24.8.2006, Rs. 7,800/- as per bill dt. 1.9.2006, Rs. 8,167/- as per bill dt. 1.10.2006 and Rs. 9,301/- as per bill dt. 1.3.2007. The complainant intends to enjoy the service provided without paying the dues under the garb of interim orders. He has been making payment according to his own whims and fancies without recoursing to the bills. The assertion that the incoming calls cannot be deactivated even if there are arrears and it has to recover the arrears in a court of law is without any basis. The alleged reconciliation statement is self-serving. They are factually incorrect. The allegation that due to disconnection he had lost the prestige and dignity in the society is misconceived and illusory. The claim of the complainant is highly exorbitant, and unreasonable, and therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked, while the respondents filed Exs. B1 to B4.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the respondent ought not to have barred the incoming calls w.e.f. 23.1.2006 and allowed the complaint in part directing him to pay the current telephone charges covered under Ex. A1 within seven days with penalty if any and on such payment the respondent shall restore both incoming and outgoing calls.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. The Dist. Forum erred in directing the parties to work out separately in a Civil Court in respect of wrong billing and excess billing and having held that the respondent was at fault in not issuing any notice before disconnection.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant is a subscriber of cell phone facility of the respondent. It is not in dispute that the respondent has issued bills dt. 1.8.2006 for Rs. 7,647/-, dt. 1.9.2006 for Rs. 7,800/-, dt. 1.10.2006 for Rs. 8,167/- and dt. 1.3.2007 for Rs. 9,301. The complainant alleges that he subscribed for the plan for post-paid incoming free for life time by paying Rs. 991/- on 23.1.2006 wherein he will be entitled to incoming calls for the life time, and therefore this cannot be de-activated even if there are arrears. It may be stated herein that he filed reconciliation statement marked as Ex. A4. He could not explain as to how he arrived at the amounts. He made his own assessment without explaining as to how he assessed. He sent Ex. A5 notice wherein he has given a tabular statement mentioning the bills amounts. He pointed out five mistakes in the bills. He arrived the difference of Rs. 670.40 according to him paid in excess in December, 2003. The respondent filed bills marked as Exs. B3 & B4. Since he had failed to pay the bills it was disconnected on 6.2.2007. He had to pay Rs. 9,301/- as on 1.3.2007. The complainant could not prove that the respondent has to issue notice before disconnection. When admittedly the complainant did not pay the amounts as per the bills by due dates it has deactivated the phone. The complainant could have paid the amounts under protest and questioned the billing. In the light of terms and conditions in Ex. B1 it is not known how the Dist. Forum could state that notice has to be issued before de-activation. It is for the complainant to pay the bills. We do not see how it could be said that he suffered mental agony etc. when he did not pay the arrears. The direction that the reconnection had to be given on complainant’s paying the arrears cannot be found fault with. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
9) In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 13. 12. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
