By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant is a subscriber of mobile phone under opposite party and used to pay the bills regularly. The bills dated, 20-8-2004, 20-9-2004 and 20-10-2004 revealed that complainant had made excess payment. The bill dated, 20-10-2004 showed the excess payment as Rs.19,946.08/-. While so, opposite party disconnected his ISD facility on 18-9-2004 without any reason and prior intimation. Even though complainant approached opposite party on several occasions and requested to reinstate the ISD facility opposite party did not accede to his request. Thereafter complainant send lawyer notice on 10-11-2004 demanding disconnection of his mobile phone, to refund the excess amount collected and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Opposite parties neither acted as per the notice nor did they reply. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service and praying for refund of Rs.19,946.08/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the inconveniences and hardships suffered by him due to illegal disconnection of ISD facility. Complainant also prays for cancellation of his mobile phone connection.<br /> 2. Opposite party has filed version admitting that complainant is a subscriber under opposite party. It is submitted that on verification in their office it was revealed that mistake crept in call reading during the period from 16-7-2004 to 19-8-2004. Complainant had actually availed STD and ISD facility for the period 30-7-2004 to 15-8-2004. But due to the mistake in call reading when the bill dated, 20-8-2004 was issued only the calls from 15-8-2004 to 19-8-2004 were read and included in the bill. This was later understood and accordingly opposite party issued bill dated, 20-01-2005 for Rs.17,606/- showing the details of actual usage made by complainant. Complainant is liable to pay the amount and also the amount as per the bills issued to him later. That opposite party has not disconnected the ISD facility. Complainant has not demanded for cancellation of phone connection. The claims put forward in the complaint are baseless. Opposite party is not liable to pay Rs.19,946.08/-. That there was an omission on the part of opposite party to include the full amount due as per the calls made by complainant in the bill dated, 20-8-2004. This was not a wilful act. It was only due to the mistake in the call reading. The mistake was informed to the complainant also. There is no deficiency in service and complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.<br /> 3. Both sides have filed affidavits by way of evidence. Exts.A1 to A5 marked on the side of complainant. No documents marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.<br /> 4. Points for consideration:-<br /> (i) Whether opposite party is deficient in service.<br /> (ii) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> 5. Point (i):-<br /> The grievances of the complainant are (i) that even though he had paid Rs.19,946.08/- as excess towards his phone charges opposite party disconnected his ISD facility without reason and prior notice (ii) though complainant requested to cancel his phone connection and to accept the surrender of the instrument opposite party did not accede to his request.<br /> 6. Complainant places reliance upon the following bills:<br /> Document Bill date Amount (Rs.) Period of the bill <br /> Ext.A1 20-08-2004 Excess 5494.57 16-07-2004 -- 19-08-2004<br /> Ext.A2 20-09-2004 Excess 21599.08 20-08-2004 -- 10-09-2004<br /> Ext.A3 20-10-2004 Excess 19946.08 20-09-2004 -- 19-10-2004<br /> Ext.A4 20-11-2004 Due 1653.00 20-10-2004 -- 19-10-2004<br /> On bare perusal of the above bills it is evident that upto 20-10-2004 complainant has made excess payment of Rs.19,946.08/- towards his phone charges. He alleges that his ISD facility was disconnected on 18-9-2004. This means prior to the issuance of Ext.A3 bill which has excess payment of Rs.19,946.08/- his ISD facility was disconnected. Although he approached opposite party requesting to reinstate his ISD facility opposite party failed to heed to his request. Ext.A5 is the notice issued through his lawyer on 10-11-2004 demanding refund of Rs.19,946.08/- which was paid in excess and also for disconnection of his phone connection. Opposite party has not send any reply. The detail call readings furnished along with Ext.A3 bill shows that complainant has availed ISD facility on 18-9-2004 upto 21:10 hrs. Thereafter he has not availed any ISD calls. This sufficiently proves the case of the complainant that his ISD facility was disconnected on 18-9-2004. <br /> 7. The defence put forward by opposite party is that mistake occurred in recording call reading for the period 16-7-2004 to 15-8-2004. That due to this mistake the calls availed by the complainant during the period 30-7-2004 to 15-8-2004 were not read and included in Ext.A1 bill. As soon as the mistake came to light a bill for Rs.17,606/- dated, 20-1-2005 showing the actual usage made by complainant was issued. Interestingly opposite party has not produced the bill dated, 20-01-2005 for Rs.17,606/- or the call wise details pertaining to this amount. It was submitted by counsel appearing for opposite party that due to technical error in the system the call wise details of the relevant period is not available. We are amazed that how opposite party was able to arrive at the amount of Rs.17,606/- without obtaining the call wise details of the period alleged to have been omitted in the bill due to mistake in call reading. It can be reasonably inferred that the contention of opposite party that complainant is liable to pay Rs.17,606/- as per bill dated, 21-01-05 is totally false and is only an attempt to claim a set off against the amount of Rs.19,946.08/- which is the excess payment made by complainant. Ext.A3 makes it crystal clear that complainant has paid Rs.19,946.08/- in excess. In Ext.A4 bill it is seen that this amount is mentioned as previous dues. Here it has to be emphasized that Ext.A4 bill is issued after the issuance of lawyer notice by complainant. For the foregoing reasons we are unable to give any credence to the defence raised by opposite party that mistake had crept in reading the calls and that the calls availed by complainant were not included in Ext.A1 bill. Apart from the vague affirmation there is no evidence to substantiate the case of opposite party. Complainant has succeeded in establishing a case in his favour by the consistent contentions supported by documentary evidence. Complainant is therefore definitely entitled to refund of Rs.19,946.08/-.<br /> 8. Ext.A5 lawyer notice amply proves that complainant requested for cancellation and surrender of his phone connection along with the instrument. Nobody can be compelled to be a consumer. Opposite party is duty bound to cancel the connection and settle the accounts on request made by complainant. Since complainant has already demanded cancellation of his phone by issuing Ext.A5 notice we hold that complainant is not liable to pay any charges demanded by opposite party after the date of issuance of Ext.A5. The act of opposite party retaining the excess charges paid by complainant, and disconnecting his ISD facility without reason and not acceding to his request to cancel his phone connection definitely amounts to deficiency in service. We find opposite party deficient in service.<br /> 9. Point (ii):-<br /> We have already stated that complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.19,946.08/-. We consider that he has to be compensated for the deficiency meted out by him. Complainant claims compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- which according to us is highly inflated and exaggerated. In our view, interest upon the above amount @ 6% per annum from the date of complaint till payment together with costs of Rs.2,500/- would meet the ends of justice.<br /> 9. In the result we allow this complaint and order opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.19,946.08/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand nine hundred and forty six and eight paise only) along with interest @ 6% per annum from date of complaint till payment together with costs of Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) within one month from the date of this order.<br /> Dated this 23rd day of October, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-<br /> MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5<br /> Ext.A1 : Bill for Rs.5494.57 dated, 20-8-2004 for the period from 16-7-04<br /> to 19-8-04 by opposite party to complainant. <br /> Ext.A2 : Bill for Rs.21599.08 dated, 20-9-2004 for the period from 20-8-04<br /> to10-9-04 by opposite party to complainant. <br /> Ext.A3 : Bill for Rs.19,946.08 dated, 20-10-2004 for the period from 20-9-04<br /> to 19-10-04 by opposite party to complainant. 1<br /> Ext.A4 : Bill for Rs.1653/- dated, 20-11-2004 for the period from 20-10-04<br /> to 19-10-04 by opposite party to complainant. <br /> Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the lawyer notice sent by complainant's counsel<br /> to opposite parties.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-<br /> MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER