Order-18.
Date-12/03/2018.
Shri Anupam Bhattacharyya
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 praying for reconnection of the Mobile No.9339703134 with up to date account for the said mobile removing all the late fees and charges including the charges for blocked period and also prays for compensation of Rs,25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.
The Complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant made a payment of Rs.228/- to the OPs for Mobile No. 9339703134, but the said amount was not up dated in spite of several communication. Subsequently, the said connection was disconnected. The payment of Rs.228/- was adjusted and fresh demand of Rs. 442.21 was generated and further several calls were made to mobile no.8130793524 by the OP for realization of payment of Rs.672.23. The same was made by the Complainmant to the OPs but the connection of the said mobile was not resorted. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by the OPs in brief is that the Complainant suppressed the fact that though the payment of Rs.228/- was not shown but it was adjusted. The connection of mobile no. 9339703134 was disconnected for non payment of outstanding dues. The Complainant has failed to appreciate the pre-condition for this postpaid connection of TRAI Rules to the effect that the mobile disconnection for non-payment of outstanding dues cannot be restored. This was the full and final settlement and if the final settlement is not done within the stipulated period, the concerned mobile number will be allotted to any third party or it will be returned to its mother operator. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP and for that the complaint will be dismissed. Hence, the case.
Considering the pleadings of both sides the following points have been raised.
Point for Decision
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and law?
- Whether there is any cause of action to file the case?
- Whether the case is barred by limitation?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- What other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for the brevity of discussion and convenience.
The instant complaint is for reconnection of mobile and waiver of charges
The complaint’s main case is that the OP illegally disconnected their connection even after payment of Rs.228/- to the OPs.
On the other hand the OP’s case, in brief, is that the Complainant is habitual defaulter and he suppressed the fact and for non payment of outstanding dues as per TRAI Rules before full and final statement the Complainant is not entitled to get reconnection and for that the Complainant’s complaint is liable to be dismissed.
To prove the case both the parties have adduced Evidence on Affidavit and they have filed questionnaires and replies vis-à-vis along with relevant documents in support of their respective case.
In this case the complainant has filed written argument and also both the Ld. Lawyer for both parties have advanced their respective argument in respect of their respective cases.
The main prayer of the complainant is for restoration of the mobile connection No.9339703134 which was disconnected in spite of payment of Rs.228/- through credit card.
In this regard from the reply of the OP against the question No.11 of the complainant it appears that the OP came to know about the credit of the said amount of Rs.228/- at their bank through automated system and again replied that adjustment was automatically done within two working days. On the other hand, the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has advanced argument both in written argument as well as during the course of hearing argument that when a payment is being made through credit card or net banking the payment goes through a payment gate way system which transfer the payment from Customer’s credit card/bank to the other part. In case there is any mistake or problem the payment returns back to the Customer’s Credit Card/Bank; there is no option for holding the payment by Payment Gateway system and they cannot make any transfer of payment after long days.
The OP has confirmed correctly in their Reply to Questionnaire that the credit was given for the amount of Rs.228/- at their Bank through automated system and that was done immediately after the payment was made by the complainant on 30th September, 2016 but the OP showed their negligence in updating the payment which is a serious deficiency of service by the OP.
The Ld. Lawyer from the complainant has further advanced argument that the complainant does not have any such mobile No.as 8130793524 which is misleading statement of the OP.
In the Evidence of Affidavit filed by the OP which has been stated that further several calls were made to the mobile no.8130793524 by the OP for realization of payment of Rs.672-23 and again in reply to the question no.24 of the compliannat the OP has stated that they had made call at 9804154752.
Against the aforesaid reply the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has advanced argument both in written argument as well as during course of hearing argument that the complainant does not have any mobile No.as 8130793524 and the said statement is misleading and the mobile No.9804154752 was not given by the complainant as his alternative number which is the official number of a NGO. The complainant after adjustment asked for fresh updated bill but no such bill was delivered by the OP.
The OP in their affidavit has admitted that the disputed amount Rs.228/- was adjusted on 27-02-2016.
Admittedly, the disputed mobile number has been disconnected by the OP. Relying upon the aforesaid admission as to adjustment of the disputed amount of Rs.228/- we can safely conclude tht the complainant is entitled to get restoration of his mobile number.
The OP has failed to establish the outstanding dues against the complainant for the impugned disconnected mobile even after payment of dues and for that the complainant is entitled to get relief as to the prayer for removal of late fees and charged for blocked disconnected period.
Regarding compensation for Rs.25,000/- question of damages suffered for such deficiency in service has not been categorically proved by cogent evidence but considering the usual question of harassment for such disconnection we are of view that the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.
On the basis of the above discussions we find that all the points are disposed of in favour of the complainant in part and, as such, the complainant is entitled to get restoration of his mobile number No.9339703134 along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- and removal of late fee and charges for the blocked disconnected period
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case no.200 of 2017 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OPs.
OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount.
The OPs are directed to restor the mobile No.9339703134 in the name of the complainant with up to date account for the said mobile removing all the late fees and charges and also remove all charges for the period when the connection was blocked within 7 days from the date of this order and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order, in default, the OPs to pay fine at the rate ofRs.100/- per day delay and the amount so accumulated should be deposited to this Forum.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision of the C.P. Act.
