PRESENT

Complainant by Adv. Shri. Ponkshe Present.

Opponent 1 Absent.

Opponent No. 2 Exparte.

                              ORDER

(Per- Shri. S.D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President )

1. The complainant is consumer of opp.no. 1 having reliance Mobile No. 9323560708 since seven years prior to filing of complaint. The relationship number is 2741079312 and plan no. is RNI 489. The credit limit is Rs.8,300/-

2. According to complainant, he has been using the mobile and paying the charges regularly as and when due in time.

3. The complainant alleged that opponent charged exorbitant bill of Rs.6080.58 plus tax for two months i.e. 27.5.2014 to 26.07.2014 towards internet charges. The dispute is regarding 2 bills for 27.05.2014 to 26.06.2014 and 27.06.2014 to 26.07.2014.

4. The complainant stated that, opp. charged Rs. 4,222.44 towards VAS ( Internet charges ) for period between 27.05.2014 to 26.06.2014 illegally as he has not utilized internet as alleged.

5. The complainant alleged that, opponent issued bill of Rs.1,858.14 against VAS charges for 27.6.2014 to 26.07.2014. It is contended that opponent waived Rs.1,939.49 ps. on the ground of unused internet charges by admitting mistake in billing.

6. According to complainan,t he paid Rs.2,615/- under protest by cheque on 6.9.2014. He requested opp. to keep mobile continued in service. It is alleged that opp. did not take steps to resolve dispute and disconnected mobile service on 26.8.2014.

7. The complainant alleged that , act of opp. caused him mental agony, business loss and stress. He claimed compensation of Rs.60,000/- and cost of Rs.25,000/- as cost. He prayed for direction to opp. to restore the mobile service.

8. The opponent filed written statement and raised preliminary objection alleging that as per S.7 B of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 dispute shall have to be referred to arbitrator.

9. The opp. alleged that Hon’ble Apex court laid down the law that in view of provision of section 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act. 1885 the remedy under consumer protection Act is by implication barred.

10. It is admitted that complainant is using mobile No.9323560708 since more than seven years. It is specifically denied that opp. charged exorbitant bill of Rs.6,080.58 for two months i.e. 27.5.2014 to 26.7.2014.

11. The opp. stated that sum of Rs.4,222.44 towards VAS for period between 27.5.2014 to 26.6.2014 was charged based upon the actual usage of the complainant. It is denied that complainant has not utilized the internet as alleged by the complainant.

12. The opp. alleged that when complainant opted for data plan in Aug.2014, opp. gave credit of Rs.19,390.49 ps in bill dated 27.7.2014 as a good will gesture. It is stated that complainant did not pay entire balance amount in respect of bill dated 27.7.2014.

13. The opp. alleged that amount of Rs.2,615/- alleged to have been paid under protest by complainant vide cheque No. 704 is not credited in the account of complainant and still there is balance amount payable by complainant for bills dated 27.6.2014 , 27.7.2014, 27.8.2014 & 27.9.2014.

14. The opp. alleged that complainant is not consumer as he was using his mobile for business activities. It is stated that opp.no. 2 is not responsible for day to day activities of opp.no. 1. All other allegations are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint under S.26 of C.P.A. 1986.

15. We have perused all the documents produced on record. Admittedly complainant is consumer of opp.no. 1. We agree with opp.no. 1 that opp.no. 2 is not responsible for day to day activities and hence we hold that, opp.no. 2 is not liable for any act as alleged by complainant.

16. In the present proceeding as per rojnama on 26.2.2015 both parties submitted that there is possibility of compromise between the parties.

17. As the settlement was not arrived, opp. filed written statement on 25.6.2015. The complainant filed Interim application for restoration of mobile service. On 4.2.2016 both parties agreed that matter be heard finally without deciding interim application.

18. The opponent did not file affidavit of evidence. The forum passed order in rojnama, dated 8.11.2016 to proceed without affidavit of evidence of opponent. The complainant filed affidavit of evidence in support of allegations made in complaint.

19. The opp.no. 1 did not file written argument though sufficient time was granted for the same. The complainant filed written argument.

20. There is no dispute that complainant availed service of opponent and opp. rendered proper service during seven years. The dispute is regarding the for two bill i.e. 27.5.2014 to 27.7.2014

21. The complainant has admitted that opp. gave credit entry of Rs.1939.49 ps waiving of unused internet charges in respect of bill during 27.6.2014 to 26.7.2014.

22. The complainant stated in affidavit of evidence, complaint & written argument that he did not at all use the internet during the said period. The opp. did not file affidavit of evidence and written argument.

23. We are of the view that opponent no. 1 was legitimately expected to consider the grievance and explain in detail regarding the bill issued particularly for 27 May 2014 to 26-06-2014.

24. As per law , complaint is maintainable before this forum. Complainant repeatedly made correspondence to opponent regarding his grievance, however we found that opponent has not resolved dispute in a reasonable manner.

25. We hold that complainant is entitle for reasonable compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony. As the disconnection is made in Aug.2014 the complainant may apply for reconnection of mobile service and the same be considered by opponent on merit and resolving the quantum of settlement of account of earlier bill.

26. In the result, we pass the following order.

                                                    ORDER

1. The Consumer complaint No.646/2014 is partly allowed.

2. Opponent No. 1 is directed to pay Rs.15,000/-( Fifteen thousand ) as compensation for mental agony to complainant and Rs.5,000/-

     ( Five thousand ) as cost.

3. The copy of this order be sent to both parties.