BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Monday the 8th day of September, 2008
C.C.No. 159/07
Between:
Dr. C.K.Ramesh Kumar, S/o. Krishnaiah,
Superintendent , ESI Hospital, Adoni. … Complainant
Versus
- M/s. Bharati Airtel Limited,
Central Plaza, Kurnool.
2. M/s. Bharati Airtel Limited, Represented by its Nodal Officer,
Splendid Towers, Opp. Begumpet Police Station,
Begumpet, Hyderabad. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.A.Anil Kumar, Advocate, for the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.159/07
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act seeking direction on the opposite parties to restore the disconnected Mobile connection No.9849905654 to complainant , pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental agony suffered at the conduct of the opposite party , Rs.1 lakh for deficiency of service, Rs.20,000/- as cost being driven to the banking ombudsman for obtaining duplicate Demand Drafts and cost of this case alleging group mobile connections of the opposite parties were provided by Director of Medical Insurance Services, Hyderabad to complainant along with other superintendents of ESI Hospitals in the state allotting mobile No. 9849905654 to the complainant for serving official purposes and the bills of consumption were being regularly paid by the complainant and inspite of that in the first fortnight of January , 2006 all of a sudden the outgoing calls of complainants mobile were stopped and on contact of the opposite party No.1-local branch office of opposite party No.2-the cause for stopping of outgoing calls to complainant’s mobile-was informed as the amounts of bills pertaining to June, October and November 2004 remained due and the said bills could not be paid for want of demand bills and however they were paid along with bills of February, 2006 by a D.D. for Rs.3,348/- and even then the connection was not restored and so on contact to National Consumer Forum? due of bills of Rs.217.29 , Rs. 562.68 , Rs.706.86 and Rs.1336/- for the periods 5-2-2004 to 4-3-2004 , 5-3-2004 to 4-4-2004 , 5-4-2004 to 7-4-2004 and 5-7-2004 to 4-8-2004 respectively were informed as due and they were already paid by the complainant by demand drafts and inspite of furnishing the duplicate of said demand drafts and earlier demand drafts the opposite party did not restore the connection and the conduct of the opposite parties in demanding the arrear bills not at single turn but on several turns amounts to deficiency of service on their part caused mental agony to complainant as on account of said disconnection the complainant lost official contacts from said mobile with head of the department and his colleague officers in the state.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant while the opposite party No.1 remained exparte to the case proceedings the opposite party No.2 caused appearance through its counsel and contested the case filling its written version denying any deficiency on its part and there by any liability for complainants claim and so seeking dismissal of the complainants case for want of proper cause of action.
3. The counter (written version) of the opposite party No.2 allege that the alleged mobile number was allotted in the name of Government of India under group mobile connection to all superintendents of ESI Hospital in the month of February, 2004 after compliance of all due formalities and the complainant was never regular as to payments of bills and there was always delays on the part of the complainant in clearing the monthly bills and resulted into huge due Rs.7,970.62 by 20-12-2006 as any payments if any made to be piece meal and on payment ofRs.2,395/- on 29-1-2006 the outgoing facility which was barred on 16-1-2006 was restored to the mobile of the complainant even though the point No. 31. 3 of agreed terms and conditions, the opposite party has right to suspend the service , and the opposite parties not responsible for the hardship if any occur to complainant in obtaining duplicate drafts as there is any part of role of the opposite parties in their misplacement and the total suspension of the mobile services to complainant was on account of the outstanding due Rs.4,390/- by 7-7-2006 and by 27-9-2006 i.e, by the time of clearance of said due by complainant the said mobile number was recycled and was allotted to new customer as no number could be kept in suspension beyond 60 days under the T.R.A.I guidelines and by 29-9-2006 eighty days lapsed of to disconnection and so the said mobile number was recycled and was allotted to a new customer and so it cannot be reactivated on the same number in favour of the complainant . Hence the complainant is having no option except to reapply for a new connection complying all its requisite formalities, as the total suspension of mobile service to complainant being at the complainants neglect in paying the bills regularly any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties could be inferable and there by any of its responsibility for any mental agony and hardship of the complainant and there by any of its liability to complainant’s claim.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A18 and sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of complaint averments , the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to B3 and sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 in reiteration of its defence.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiencies of the opposite parties to make them liable to the complainants claim .
6. The Ex.A1 is the proceedings of Director of Insurance Medical services dated 17-2-2004 allotting there under mobile cell phone to category No.1 and 2 officials of Andhra Pradesh Insurance Medical Services Department mentioned there in, among whom the superintendent of ESI Hospital , Adoni is one allotting to him the cell phone bearing No. 9849905654 . It envisages the cell phones were allotted and the said allotment was in their official capacity and cadre and not in the name of any individuals. Hence the consumer for the said cell allotted was the official of the office to which the said cell phone was allotted and not the person who may be in said post. Therefore any grievance as consumer of said cell phone services has to be made by the official in said official capacity and not in his individual capacity. To say other wise the consumer grievances for its redressal must be filed by said official represented by the individual holding that post and not in vice-versa. As this case is filed in the individual name of the officer of the said office, and not by the status of the official to which said cell phone was allotted the filling of the very case by the complainant, in his individual capacity remains improper and without any proper locus standee.
7. The correspondence in Ex.A2 to A14 also appears to have been made on the individual name of the officer of the said office and not by the officer in his official capacity representing said post to which the said mobile was allotted.
8. Even the proceedings before banking ombudsman in the exhibits Ex.A 15 to A17 also appears to have been laid and proceeded on the individual name of the complainant rather than in his official capacity .
9. The Ex.B1 attested Xerox of power of attorney executed by the opposite party No.2 in favour of C.Seshu for doing all or any of the acts such as suing or being sued for company in all civil, criminal proceedings and execution of vakalath, sign pleadings affidavits and file applications. In pursuance of said power in Ex.B1, the vakalath, written version and verified affidavit and sworn affidavit, replies interrogatories etc., were caused by said C. Seshu in this case.
10. The Ex.B2 statement dated 6-12-2005 filed in answer to the interrogatory No.16 of complainant. It envisages of the particulars relating to date of activation and of the statement as to billing period of 5-11-2005 to 4-12-2005 pertaining to the cell phone standing to the account number 104-100162756 and mobile No. 9849905654 of superintendent ESI Hospital, Adoni and also previous balance and of the net current charges and its details. It envisages arrears of Rs.7,9970.62 i.e, Rs.733091 (due arrears by the date) Plus Rs.639.71/- (net current charges) by the date of said statement in Ex.B2 and the credit limit there under as only Rs.7,000/-. By the above it appears that the said due exceeded the said credit limit is even.
11. The Ex.B3 statement dated 6-7-2006 for billing period 5-6-2006 to 4-7-2006, filed in reply to the interrogatory No.21 of the complainant, envisages the previous balance due by that time as Rs.4,539.71ps and the net current charges of said month Rs.370.39ps and the payment made there under being Rs.500/- only the outstanding said bill as Rs.4,390.10ps. It too envisages detailed particulars of mobile during said billing period.
12. From the above Ex.B2 and B3 what follows is that there was no regular payment of bills for the said mobile cell No.9849905654 of the office of the superintendent, ESI Hospital , Adoni and payments if any were also part amounts and not the full payments.
13. While such is so with the above material the Ex.A2 letter dated 25-1-2006 of the complainant to the opposite party No.2 requesting for tallying the payments shown in annexure with the particulars at the end of opposite party No.2 . But the Ex.A2 does not possess the so called annexure said to have been enclosed to the opposite party for tallying purpose, for appreciation of any factum of regular and promt payment of bills from the complainant towards the said mobile No. 9849905654.
14. In the Ex.A3 letter dated 24-2-2006 addressed by the complainant to opposite party No.2 in sequence to Ex.A2, alleges out of 23 bills generated 19 bills were paid by the complainant. By this also what follows is that there was no regular, prompt and full payment of bills for that mobile cell phone from the office of superintendent, ESI Hospital, Adoni.
15. The Ex.A4 letter dated 21-3-2006 of the complainant addressed to opposite party No.2 alleges that from 21-3-2004 their institute paid 23 bills generated so far vide reference No. 2 and 4 mentioned in said letter i.e, A/c No.104-100162756 and A/c.No.CB 31/E1/05 dated 24-2-2006. None of those references are placed for appreciation in this case to believe the truth in said assertion of payment of 23 bills generated till than as against the payments of 19 bills only out of 23 generated bills alleged in Ex.A3 dated 24-2-2006 or any other material which will envisage the payments of bills of June, October and November, 2004 for which demand bills are were said to hence received by the date of Ex.A4.
16. The Ex.A5 letter dated 22-3-2006 addressed by the complainant to the Director Insurance Medical Services, Hyderabad on the very next day to Ex.A4 wherein he alleges disconnection of his mobile phone out going services for not payment of bills and got restoration of connectivity paying those three pending bills and obtained acknowledgement for said payments. But said acknowledgment was not filed to appreciate the truth in his assertion and to infer any harshs conduct of the opposite parties official staff.
17. The Ex.A6 is letter dated 31-3-2006 addressed by the complainant to Nodal Officer of opposite party No.2 requiring him to inform by 12-4-2006 regarding call barring to his mobile phone No. 9849905654 and seeking restoration of connectivity and withdrawal of excess billing from the next bill. But in the Ex.A5 letter dated 22-3- 2006, earlier to Ex.A6, addressed by the complainant to the Nodal Officer the complainant alleges restoration of connectivity. If there is any truth in the request for seeking re connectivity in Ex.A6 – in the Ex.A5 the complainant would not have in consistently say the reconnection was given. Hence there appears any consistency in the conduct of the complainant at the matters to believe the truth in his above material.
18. In the Ex.A7 letter dated 20-4-2006 it appears that non materilization of 4 bills relating to the year 2004 were brought to the notice of complainant by Mr.Jawahar Babu-representative of opposite party No.1 and the complainant has proof of taking drafts sending through EMS speed post to the OP.No.2 address at Hyderabad in the year 2004. But any such proof, said to be with the complainant, was placed by the complainant for the appreciation of the truth of said assertion of complainant made in Ex.A7. On the other hand by averment of last para of Ex.A7 it appears that the complainant satisfied as to the fact of the non receipt of said drafts by the opposite party No.2 as the complainant there by exhibits his intention to take the matters with State Bank of India to confirm non payment of said drafts and for issual of their duplicates and revalidate them before submitting to the opposite parties in due course.
19. In Ex.A7 and Ex.A8-letter dated 24-5-2006 said to have addressed to complainant to the Chairman and Managing Director Bharathi Cellular Limited, New Delhi-besides taking reference of his earlier letters dated 25-1-2006, 9-2-2006 and reiteration of the same takes mention of the complainants approach to National Consumer Forum? and its direction to the opposite parties for payment of compensation for the irresponsible attitude and breach of services. None of those order proceedings of so called National Consumer Forum were filed for appreciation of the truth in said contentions and imply any deficit conduct of the opposite parties and the complainant as Mr. Clean. There appears any reasonableness in the contentions of the complainant in Ex.A8 that he should have a letter of non receipt to write to the bank for missing drafts as that could be so if the complainant is having any concrete material proof as to their proper sending to the opposite party. For the inconvenience suffered consequent disconnection of his mobile phone on account of his own default conduct in paying bills regularly without creating any due the complainant is not reaming justified in feeling ashamed to his repudiation and in going over to other phone and threatening the opposite parties in Ex.A8 to move the so called National Consumer Forum for adequate compensation.
20. The Ex.A9, 10 and 11 are letters dated 3-6-2006, 15-6-2006, and 8-8-2006 respectively addressed by the complainant to the Manager State Bank of India, Adoni, State Bank of India Main Branch, Hyderabad and State Bank of India Main Branch, Hyderabad requesting for re validating the four drafts all worth Rs.2876.97 of the year 2004 said to have been issued in favour of opposite party account No.104-100162756. This itself envisage those drafts dated 23-3-2004, 6-6-2004, 16-6-2004 and 3-9-2004 on account of those non remittance to the opposite party such a step was taken by the complainant. It shows further not only how regular and attentive the complainant is in seeing the payment of the bills of the mobile phones paid promptly, but also those drafts were not got revalidated even by the dates of those above stated letters and so there being any remittance of those demand drafts to the account of the opposite party they are remaining due even by those dates. From the Ex.A13 letter dated 11-9-2006 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 it appears that those revalidate four drafts were sent to the opposite party No.1 there under. By this what could be inferred is that those drafts were in the hands of the opposite party only latter to 11-9-2006. In pursuance of undertaking taken in said Ex.A13 to pay the arrears if any left out, the complainant, vide Ex.A14 dated 27-9-2006, remits an amount of Rs.1529 vide demand draft No. 515200 dated 27-9-2006 towards the pending due of the mobile number 9849905654. By this Ex.A14 what appears further is that even after the transmission of four revalidated cheques and the sending of draft for Rs.1529/- as the request was made by the complainant in Ex.A14 for reconnection to the phone at the earliest it goes any further say that the disconnection of said phone was already made for non payment of due bills and the said is still in vogue.
21. The Ex.A15 is communication of the office of the Banking, Ombudsman A.P, addressed to the complainant towards his complaint No.1786 requesting the complainant to make his further correspondence with said complaint number.
22. The Ex.A16 is another communication of the office of Banking , Ombudsman, RBI , Hyderabad addressed to State Bank of India, Adoni , marking its copy to the complainant as to the complaint No.1786 of the complainant and requesting the SBI, Adoni to filed its version on or before to 8-9-2006 for adjudication and settlement of the grievances of complainant .
23. By the Ex.A17 dated 18-9-2006 the Office of the Banking , Ombudsman, A.P.R.B.I , Hyderabad, marking its information copy to SBI, Adoni and Manager Customer Service, Hyderabad informed to the complainant the grievances of the complainant as redressed as the duplicate drafts were furnished to the complainant on 7-9-2006 as per version of SBI, Adoni .
24. By the above Ex.A15 to A17 what appears is that the four revalidated drafts were furnished to the complainant during pendency of the complainant’s complaint with Banking Ombudsman and so those drafts relating to the earlier dues were hand over to the opposite party subsequently and not earlier than that and so the said amount of drafts remained due to the opposite parties till than and so for want of clearance of arrears and dues on the part of the superintendent ESI Hospital, Adoni in whose favour the said mobile stands, the opposite party is remaining justified in causing disconnection to the said mobile number and so there appears any deficiency of service of the opposite parties in said act of disconnection to the mobile number 9849905654.
25. The Ex.A18 letter dated 12-7-2007 addressed by State Bank of India, Osman gunj, Hyderabad addressed to Dr.B.Jonathan, Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Adoni in reference to alleged letter number RC No.327 dated 19-6-2007. It certifies the clearance of draft No.0719-086380 dated 24-2-2006 for Rs.3348/- favoring opposite party No.2 through clearing to standard Charted Bank, CMS, Hyderabad. The said Ex.A18 provides any help to the case of the complainant for want of particulars in said Ex.A18 to which demand of the opposite party No.2 the said draft was paid and want of said RC.No.327 dated 19-6-2007 for appreciation as the perusal of which may at least would have provided to know what it related to.
26. It is submitted by the opposite party side that no mobile number shall be under suspension for any default of payment of bills for more than 60 days and on disconnection it would be recycled for being allotted new customer and the disconnection of the mobile concerned in this case for chronic defaults of payment of bills regularly without keeping due and there being any deficiency on their part in said disconnection, in the above state of circumstances the period undergone in disconnection being more than 60 days the complainant is having no other go except to apply for fresh if he wishes the mobile phone service of the opposite party.
27. There appears every reasonableness and justification in the above submission of the opposite party and so the request of the complainant as to restoration of the disconnected number to the complainant is not remaining valid for being ordered in favour of the complainant, especially when the individual complaint of the complainant is having any locus standie to file this case.
28. When in deficiency of service is found on the part of the opposite party in causing disconnection of the service to the alleged mobile number to which the complainant is having any individual privy the other reliefs claimed by the complainant also not remaining worthy of ordering in favour of the complainant.
29. Consequently, there being any merit and force in the case of the complainant creating any liability on the opposite parties to the complainants claim, the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 8th day of September, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Letter dated 17-02-2004 as to document of 9849905654 Cell Phone No. to Superintendent, ESI hospital, Adoni.
Ex.A2. Letter dated 25-01-2006 of Complainant to OP. No.2
Ex.A3. Letter dated 24-02-2006 of Complainant to OP. No.2
Ex.A4. Letter dated 21-03-2006 of Complainant to OP. No.2
Ex.A5. Letter dated 22-03-2006 of Complainant to Director Insurance Medical Service.
Ex.A6. Letter dated 31-03-2006 of Complainant to Nodal Officer along with speed post receipt.
Ex.A7. Letter dated 20-04-2006 of Complainant to Nodal Officer along with speed post receipt
Ex.A8. Letter dated 24-05-2006 of Complainant to Chairman and Managing Director of No.2.
Ex.A9. Letter dated 03-06-2006 Complainant to Manager, SBI, Adoni.
Ex.A10. Letter dated 15-06-2006 of Complainant to SBI,
Hyderabad.
Ex.A11. Letter dated 08-08-2006 of Complainant to Manager, SBI, Hyderabad.
Ex.A12. Letter dated 09-08-2006 of Complainant to Bank Ombudsman RBI, Hyderabad.
Ex.A13. Letter dated 11-09-2006 of complainant to Bharati Airtel
Limited, Adoni.
EX.A14. Letter dated 27-9-2006 of complainant to Bharati Airtel
Limited, Adoni.
EX.A15. Letter dated 23-8-2006 of ombudsman to complainant.
EX.A16. Letter Dated.28.08.2006 of Banking Ombudsman as to registration of Complainant case as 1786/2006-2007
Ex.A17. Order of Ombudsman 18-09-2006 in Complainant No. 1786/2006-2007.
Ex.A18. Letter dated 12-7-2007 addressed to Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Adoni.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Power of Attorney in favour C.Sheshu (attested copy)
Ex.B2. Statement dated 6-12-2005 in 3 pages of A/c.No. 104-1000162756 from 05-11-2005 to 4-12-2005.
Ex.B3. Statement dated 6-7-2006 ( attested copy) of A/c.No. 104-1000162756 for the period 05-06-2006 to 04-07-2006.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
