Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/539

NODAL OFFICER BHARATHI AIRTEL LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJAN C A - Opp.Party(s)

C S RAJMOHAN

03 Jan 2018

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL.NO.539/2015

 JUDGMENT DATED : 03.01.2018

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.114/2009 on the file of CDRF,  Thrissur, order dated : 07.07.2014)

 

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN         : PRESIDENT

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                                   : MEMBER

APPELLANT/1^st OPPOSITE PARTY

          Nodal Officer, Bharathi Airtel Ltd.,

          SL Avenue, Kundannur, Maradu, Cochin

 

          By advocates Sri.R.Chandrapraveen and Sri.Rajmohan C.S  

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & 2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY

1.  Rajan. C.A, Marketting Manager,

M/s Vision Project Consultance & Developers,

TempleView Apartments, Sastha Road,

Thiruvambadi, Thrissur.

2. Manager, V-Tel, Airtel Connect City Arcade,

Ground Floor, Thrissur

 

 

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

 First opposite party in C.C 114/2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur for short “District Forum” has filed this appeal challenging the Order of the Forum directing opposite parties to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) towards business loss and Rs.10,000/-( Rupees Ten thousand) as compensation and cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) to the complainant.

2.Complainant  a customer of opposite parties  had taken telephone connection from them for carrying out his business.  He claimed that as a business partner of a concern engaged in construction works he had participated in a property show and his contact number  given was that of the  telephone connection given by opposite parties.  Opposite party without notice barred his telephone connection and thereby he suffered business loss was his case to claim compensation against them filing the complaint.  Opposite party contended that he was chronic defaulter in paying the of charges incurred for the use of telephone provided and, therefore, after intimating him the connection was barred on two-three occasions.  Liability to compensate the applicant was disputed by opposite parties.

3.  Evidence consisted of oral testimony of complainant as PW.1 and Exts.B1 to B7.  No evidence was tendered by opposite parties. Analysing the materials the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing opposite parties to pay sums fixed as above to the complainant.  Aggrieved by the Order first opposite party has filed this appeal.

4. Notice of appeal was served on the complainant,  but, he had elected to remain absent.

5.  We heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the records.  Learned counsel for appellant urged that complainant was a chronic defaulter in making payments of the telephone charges payable. We find no material had been placed before the District Forum to sustain the case canvassed. We also find from the materials produced that the lower forum was justified in concluding that the telephone connection was barred by opposite parties at a time when there was no default on payment in charges.  The bills and receipts produced by the complainant and exhibited in evidence  clearly demonstrate that during the month of June, July and August 2008 payments had been made in time by the complainant. During the above period the telephone company/appellant had barred the telephone connection of the complainant on two occasions which  in the given facts had to be treated as totally unjustified.  However, we find no material in the case to hold that the complainant was a Managing Partner of the concern named by him in his complaint. When complainant examined as PW.1 and subjected to cross examination to the question  whether the partnership firm had been registered, it is seen,  he had pleaded ignorance stating that he was only an employee.  It is interesting to note in the affidavit sworn to in lieu of his examination in chief he  claimed that he is  the managing partner of that firm.  In such circumstances the case canvassed by  complainant as to  business loss  to seek compensation for  unauthorized acts of opposite party in barring his telephone connection on two occasions can be taken only with a pinch of salt.  The District Forum without taking note of the above circumstances  has awarded him sum fixed as  business loss and compensation to the complainant. Complainant has not established any business loss tendering any material to prove that claim.  His bald assertion that he had given his contact number as the telephone number provided by opposite party for a property show would not enable him to claim any sum towards business loss especially where it is seen that he is only an employee of the business concern and was not  the Managing Partner of that concern as claimed  in his complaint.  We hold that he is not entitled to any sum towards business loss.  Ofcourse where the acts of service provider-telephone company in barring the connection is shown to be  unjustified it is liable to pay reasonable compensation.  We find that the sum awarded by District Forum on that count is excessive and it is  limited to Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand).  Cost awarded by the Forum is retained.

In the result Order of District Forum granting sum of Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) to the complainant as business loss is set aside, and compensation awarded is modified and reduced to Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) retaining the cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only).  Amount as modified, if not realised so far, shall be paid to the complainant from the sum deposited  by appellant for entertaining the appeal, and,  Complainant  to move an application for realizing the sum.  Balance amount on deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant on application. 

Appeal is partly allowed directing both parties to suffer their costs.

 

JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN:  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V.JOSE                            :  MEMBER

pr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE KERALA STATE              CONSUMER DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSIION

VAZHUTHACAUDE,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

          JUDGMENT IN  A..539/2015

         DATED:03.01.2018