24.04.2015

MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER

            The instant Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Complainant challenging the Order No. 8 dated 23.8.2013 passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 422/2012.

          Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant/Appellant, in course of carrying out the business of ‘Furnishing Cloth’ under the name and style of M/s. R.K.International, used to maintain a Current Account bearing No. 0325090004273 with the OPs/Respondents-Bank and to make payment of telephone bills, electric bills, etc. through ‘Auto Payment’ Mode of the said Current Account, as averred in the Petition of Complaint.  Once the OPs/Respondents-Bank did not disburse negligently a mobile phone bill of Rs. 392.35 for the period from 3.6.2012 to 2.7.2012 in respect of the mobile phone No. 9339544072 which was being used for running the business of the Complainant/Appellant, as averred in the Petition of Complaint.  As a result of non-payment of the said bill, the service provider of the said mobile phone had suspended/disconnected the service of the mobile phone.  Then the Complainant served an Advocate’s letter dated 21.8.2012 upon the OPs/Respondents-Bank demanding compensation for loss of business because of suspension/disconnection of the said mobile phone, as averred in the Petition of Complaint, but without any success.  In this factual background, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order dismissing the Complaint.  Dissatisfied with such order the Complainant has approached this Commission by filing the instant Appeal.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order erroneously and without properly appreciating the fact and nature of the grievance of the Complaint Case.

          To elaborate his above submission the Ld. Advocate states that in the Complaint Case the grievance actually revolves round the deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the Respondents/OPs-Bank for their failure to make payment of a bill for the mobile phone through the said Current Account  the Complainant was maintaining with the Respondents/ OPs-Bank, and thus the grievance does not revolve round the suspension/ disconnection of the mobile phone for outstanding bill amount.

          The Ld. Advocate also submits that the failure on the part of the Respondents/OPs-Bank to make payment of the said bill for the mobile phone through the said Current Account, constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents/OPs-Bank.

          The Ld. Advocate further submits that in view of the aforesaid submission the impugned judgment and order should be set aside.

          None appeared on behalf of the Respondents/OPs-Bank on the date of final hearing although Notices were duly served upon them as revealed from the records.  The Respondents/OPs-Bank did not file any Written Version even before the Ld. District Forum.

          We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant and perused the materials on records.

          Materials on records reveal that the grievance in the Complaint Case actually revolves round the deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents/OPs-Bank due to their failure to make payment of a mobile phone bill through the Current Account being maintained with the Respondents/OPs-Bank.  On the other hand, the impugned judgment and order appears to have taken into consideration the issue of suspension/disconnection of the mobile phone, as referred to earlier, for outstanding bills amount as transpired from the reliance of the Ld. District Forum on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr., decided on 1.9.2009 in Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004, which exclusively dealt with whether or not the Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to adjudicate the case of telephone disconnection when there was a special remedy provided u/s 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act.  Hence, the cited case, relying upon which the Ld. District Forum has dismissed the Complaint, is not relevant to the case in hand.

          On the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment and order, which appears to us to have been passed without correct appreciation of the fact and nature of grievance of the Complaint Case.

          From the materials on record it is evident that there was failure on the part of the OPs-Bank to disburse the amount against the phone bill of the Complainant inspite of standing instruction from him.  This failure undoubtedly speaks of the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Bank, for which the Complainant is entitled to get compensation.

          The Appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment and order is set aside.  The Complaint stands allowed.

          The OPs-Bank/Respondents herein are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the Complainant/ Appellant within 45 days from this date, failing which the interest @ 9% per annum shall accrue on the aforesaid amount from the date of default till realization in full.