DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 185 of 2010 Date of Inst: 25.03.2010 Mandeep Kaur Thiara wife of Sh.Harmanjit Singh Thiara r/o House No.1487, Sector 40, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S M/s Idea Office, SCO No.495, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Manager. ---Opposite Party QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Munish Goel, Adv. for complainant Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for Sh.Vishal Gupta, Advocate for OP. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Smt.Mandeep kaur has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to i) pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service as well as mental tension and harassment ii) pay costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that she is subscriber of OP having mobile No.9814086020. She had been paying the mobile bills regularly. The billing circle of the mobile of the complainant is from 8th to 8th of the every month. On 08.03.2010 when she tried to call her family doctor to enquire about treatment of her children, she noted that the mobile connection was disconnected. Thereafter, the complainant tried to contact the officials of the OP but all in vain. On 09.03.2010, the complainant went to the office of Idea at Sector 35, Chandigarh and enquired about the outstanding dues but she was told that the computer is not working. Ultimately, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- but despite that the mobile was not connected till next morning. According to the complainant due to disconnection of the mobile phone, she suffered mental agony and harassment. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In reply filed by OP, it has been averred that the mobile phone of the complainant has been disconnected because the complainant has crossed her credit limit and despite repeated requests, the complainant has failed to deposit the interim payment and as such her number was suspended. It has further been pleaded that the mobile connection of complainant was restored on payment of the outstanding dues. It has further been pleaded that the efforts was made to contact the complainant through alert calls for bill payments on 09.03.2010 but the call was disconnected by the complainant. So the mobile connection was deactivated for non-payment of outstanding dues. Therefore, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the mobile of the complainant was disconnected on 08.03.2010 despite the fact that she was regularly paying the mobile bills. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the OP that the telephone of the complainant was disconnected because she exceeded her credit limit and failed to make the payment of the bills in time. The complainant has failed to place on record any reliable document to show that the mobile phone was disconnected despite the payment of telephone dues. Further, the complainant has not placed on record any document to show that she has suffered any loss on account of disconnection of the telephone. In our view, OP has the right to disconnect the mobile phone on account of non-payment of its dues. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Otherwise also, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the disputes pertaining to disconnection of the phone due to non-payment of the bills in view of the judgement titled as General Manager, Telecom versus M. Krishnan & Anr. reported in III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC). 6. In view of the above findings, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. The complainant, if so advised, may seek redressal of her grievances before the competent authority as per the provisions of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. 7. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced sd/- 04.02.2010 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT m sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
