Date of Filing: 24.07.2007<br /> Date of Order:10.01.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 10th DAY OF JANUARY 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President<br /> Smt. C.V. Rajamma, B.Sc., LL.B., PGDPR, Member<br /> Sri. M. Nagabhushana, B.Com, LL.B., Member<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1535 OF 2007<br /> <br /> Sri. S. Kuppuswamy, <br /> C/o. M/s. Color International,<br /> No.224/1681, HBR Layout,<br /> 3rd Block, Kalyannagar Post,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 043. …. COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> -V/s-<br /> <br /> M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd.,<br /> No.55, Diyashree Chambers,<br /> Bannergatta Road, opp to Jayadeva Hospital,<br /> Bangalore – 560 029. …. OPPOSITE PARTY<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This complaint is filed claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party on the following grounds :-<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The complainant had availed Mobile Phone No.9845040549, since the time Airtel Mobile service was launched. Recently some of the Airtel franchise gave one add on card of his Mobile Number or the Mobile of somebody else is billed to the phone bill concerning the Mobile phone of the complainant. Over phone and by mail the complainant informed the opposite party that he will pay only his bill and the extra amount should be collected from them. The opposite party also gave an assurance on 03.07.2007. But inspite of such assurance the opposite party was calling the complainant every day and thus giving mental torture and not allowing him to do his work at his Office as a result of which he was depressed. The wife of the complainant is working at Raichur and he has to take care of his two children and aged father. Because of the mental torture by calling him everyday two to three times, he is unable to concentrate on his work or at home. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the version the contention of the opposite party is as under:-<br /> The subscriber in respect of Mobile No.9845040549 is one ‘Color International’ which is a Company. Earlier the company was run in the name of ‘Color Lines’ and due to the change of name the opposite party was requested to change from Color Lines to Color International. The signature on the Subscriber Enrolment Form differs from the signature of the complainant and therefore the complainant cannot be treated as a subscriber in respect of the above mobile and therefore the complainant is not a “Consumer” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. As per the bill dated: 27.06.2007 issued in the name of M/s. Color International, it is mentioned perhaps by the subscriber that only the amount pertaining to the mobile in question is paid and as such the allegation that the bill of the Mobile number of some body else is added is virtually deleted by the subscriber company and as such the allegation remains as an empty slogan created for the purpose of this case. The opposite party company has no practice of calling any subscriber on his mobile demanding payment of the bill. The only practice followed is to remind the subscriber through SMS and inspite of it, if the bill is not paid the same will be added on the next bill showing the same as arrears. Therefore, the allegation that the complainant was harassed over phone does not stand to reason. Those allegations have been made for the purpose of the complaint without disclosing the locus-standi of the complainant with regard to the mobile in question. The complainant is making mischievous allegations and wants to take the opposite party for a ride in the guise of Consumer litigation. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and therefore the complaint is liable to dismissed.<br /> <br /> 4. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant. The opposite party and their counsel remained absent when the matter came up for arguments.<br /> <br /> 5. The points for consideration are:- <br /> (1) Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act?<br /> <br /> (2) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? <br /> <br /> (3) Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are:-<br /> Point No.1:- In the affirmative,<br /> Point No.2:- In the affirmative,<br /> Point No.3:- As per final order.<br /> <br /> 7. Point No.1:- <br /> The complainant claims that he has availed mobile connection bearing No.9845040549 from the opposite parties. As against this it is contended by the opposite party that M/s. Color International is the subscriber in respect of the said mobile. From the copy of the bills produced by the parties, it is seen that, M/s. Color International is the Subscriber in respect of the above Mobile Number. But from the copy of the letter dated: 05.03.2007 addressed by M/s. Color International to the opposite party, it is seen that, M/s. Color International has taken six mobile connections from the opposite party in the name of the Company as corporate connections and each mobile is provided to a different official of the Company as mentioned in the said letter. The mobile in question is provided to the complainant. In Para-4 of the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence the complainant has also stated that, out of six mobile numbers under corporate connections he has been provided with the mobile in question, all the mobile bills are received in the name of the Company and the individual bills will be referred by the office after noting the name of the employee who is provided a particular mobile number and such official makes payment of the bill amount. According to the complainant out of six mobile connections taken as corporate connections, he is paying the bills in respect of mobile in question. This contention of the complainant that he is paying the bill amount in respect of the mobile in question is also not disputed by the opposite party. If that if so, it goes to indicate that the Company has taken six mobile connections from the opposite party as corporate connection including the mobile in question, the complainant has been using the mobile and it is a Complainant who is paying the bill amount in respect of the said mobile. Therefore though the company had availed the mobile services from the opposite party, the complainant is the beneficiary of such services availed and is making payment of the bill amount and as such, he is a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly we answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.<br /> <br /> 8. Point Nos.2 & 3:-<br /> A reading of the complaint makes it clear that, the grievance of the complainant is with regard to the number of calls made by the employees of the opposite party demanding payment of the bill amount in respect of a mobile of which the complainant was not the subscriber. The dispute is with regard to the bill dated: 27.06.2007. In this bill a sum of Rs.1,383.81 was claimed in respect of Mobile No.9845040549 and Account No.105-101604055 and a sum of Rs.271/- was claimed in respect of Mobile No 9972097144 having different Account Number. According to the complainant he is not the Subscriber of Mobile No.9972097144 and therefore soon after the bill dated: 27.06.2007 was received he called upon the opposite party and informed that a sum of Rs.271/- was claimed in respect of a Mobile Number of which he is not the Subscriber and he will make payment of the bill amount in respect of the mobile of which he is the Subscriber. According to the complainant inspite of the information given to the opposite party that, a sum of Rs.271/- is claimed in respect of mobile belonging to some body else the staff of the opposite party went on making call demanding payment and thereby he suffered mental torture and harassment and as such, he was unable to concentrate on the work. Though in the version, the opposite party denies having made any calls demanding payment of the bill amount, from the copies of the E-mail letters addressed by the complainant to the opposite party we are convinced that only on account of the frequent calls from the staff of the opposite party demanding payment of the bill amount the complainant had to address several letters by E-mail to the opposite party disowning his liability in respect of the mobile for which he is not the subscriber. When soon after receipt of the bill the complainant informed the opposite party that the sum of Rs.271/- claimed in the bill does not pertain to the mobile subscribed by him, it was necessary for the opposite party to verify the records and find-out to whom the said mobile belongs and to inform how complainant is liable to pay the bill amount in respect of that mobile. Without doing so the staff of the opposite party appears to have made several calls demanding payment from the complainant and this appears to have subjected the complainant to mental torture and harassment. When several calls are made demanding payment in respect of other mobiles, this act of the opposite party in disturbing the complainant by making calls during working hours clearly amounts to deficiency in service especially when the complainant informed that he is not liable to pay a sum of Rs.271/- claimed in the bill. Though, in the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence the complainant has stated that his mobile was disconnected four times, no such allegation are made in the complaint and therefore in the absence of pleadings, we are unable to accept this allegation of the complainant in the affidavit. In the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the complainant is not entitled to seek compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party. In our opinion, awarding of Rs.10,000/- as compensation would meet the ends of justice. In the result, we pass the following:-<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complaint within eight weeks from the date of communication failing, which the amount awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> 2. Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> 3. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 10th DAY OF JANUARY 2008.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />