Present:  1. Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President.

                                 2. Smt. Sheena.V.V, Member.

                                 3. Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar, Member

7^th day of July 2014

                                     C.C. 114/09 filed on7-2-09

Complainant:        Rajan C.A., Marketing Manager, M/s. Vision Project Consultants & Developers, Temple View apartments, Sastha Road, Thiruvambadi, Thrissur.

                             (By Adv. A.D. Benny, Thrissur)

Respondents: 1.    Nodal Officer, Bharathi Airtel Ltd., SL Avenue, Kundannur, Maradu, Cochin.         

                             (By Advt. P. Mohanakrishnan, Thrissur)

                      2.    Manager, V-Tel, Airtel Connect city Arcade, Ground Floor,, Thrissur.

                                                O R D E R

By M.P.Chandrakumar,  Member:

The case of the complainant with Airtel Connection no. 9895234222 is that his connection was banned on 19-6-2008 and 20/7/2008 without any intimation or reason and hence, his clients, who tried to contact him on that days, could not do so.  Being a business partner of M/s. Vision project consultants and Developer, Trichur, he had participated in a property show held at Trichur, in which, he had given the above number as the contact number to the participants.  Since the interested clients could not contact him on the above days due to the banning, he suffered huge loss in business.  The monthly bill of Airtel is being remitted by the complainant regularly and never exceeded the credit limit.  The petitioner is working exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self-employment and therefore above action on the part of the respondent, which led to huge losses in business and which affected his livelihood is actually a breach of trust and deficiency of service and hence the complaint filed.

          2.  In the version filed, the respondent has stated that the petitioner was a regular defaulter in paying the bill amount.  As the total outstanding amount crossed the credit limit, the out going calls of the petitioner was initially banned on 5-6-08 and then suspended on 20-6-08, after calling and intimating the petitioner on 24/5/08 and then after sending the pre-connection SMS.  However, the banning was released on 20/6/08 itself, through the amount was not paid, keeping in mind the goodwill of the company and the customer friendly policy.  Even though the account was again suspended on 9/7/08, for non-payment, the same was released from banning on the same day, even though the payment, was made only on 10/7/08.  Thus, since there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents, dismiss.

3. The points for consideration are:

1. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?
2. If so, compensation and costs.

4.  Evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P7 marked.  Second respondent remained exparte.

5.  The petition is filed, claiming deficiency of service and breach of trust on the part of the respondents in banning the calls of the telephone on 19/6/08 and 20/7/08 without prior notice or intimation even though he is regular in payments.  The respondent denying the argument, states that the petitioner is a regular defaulter, as regards payments and hence, during almost all months, the respondent had to suspend/ban the connection, only after pre-disconnection SMS and calling and intimating the petitioner.

6. The petitioner has produced Exhibits P1 to P7, as evidences to his claim where as 1^st respondent has neither adduced oral evidence nor produced any exhibits as evidence, in support of their claim that the petitioner has defaulted in making payments and is therefore, a regular defaulter.  Exhibits P1: P3 and P5 are bills of the respondent dated 21/5/2008, 21/6/2008 and 21/7/08 to the petitioner, showing the due dates given for remittances, as 8-6-08, 9-7-08 and 8-8-08.  Exhibits P2, P4 and P6 are receipts of the respondent, in token of having received cash against the above bills, on 7-6-08, 9-7-08 and 9-8-08.  This shows that except during 8/08, where there is only one day delay, remittance have been made on due dates during the other tow months of 6/08 and 7/08.

7.  On going through the evidences produced, the Forum could find no delay in remittance and also no justification for the banning/suspension of the phone on the above dates.  The respondent has already admitted the banning of the phone on 5-6-08 and suspension of the phone on 20-6-08 and 9-7-08.  However, the respondent has not produced any substantial proof or adduced satisfactory reason, as a justification.  The Forum, therefore, feels the matter, as a deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.  However, the petitioner has also failed to prove the gravity of the loss occurred, due to the banning of the phone.

8.  In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The respondents are directed to pay RS.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards the business loss stated as incurred to him, along with Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards costs, within two months of the date of receipt of the Order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 7^th day of July 2014.

M.P.Chandrakumar, Member

Padmini Sudheesh, President.

                                                                   Sheena.V.V, Member.    

                                      Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits:

Ext. P1 – Bill dated 21-5-2008

Ext. P2- Receipt No. 765479

Ext. P3 – Bill dated 21-6-08

Ext. P4 – Receipt dated 9/7/08

Ext. P5 – Bill dated 21-7-07

Ext. P6 – Receipt dated 9/8/08

Ext. P7 – copy of lawyer notice

Complainant’s witness :

PW1 – Rajan C.A.