Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/825

IDEA CELLULAR LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM GOPAL UPADHYAY - Opp.Party(s)

SH. AMIT TIWARI

07 Jul 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 825 OF 2016

 (Arising out of order dated 09.06.2016 passed in C.C.No.238/2014 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.                                                                                  …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

RAM GOPAL UPADHYAYAY.                                                                        …         RESPONDENT.

 

                                      

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                    

                                      O R D E R

 

07.07.2023

 

            Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

            None for the respondent.

                                   

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

            This appeal arises out of order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No. 238/2014 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent directing the opposite party/appellant-Idea Cellular to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation within a period of one month. Cost of Rs.2,000/- is also awarded. If the amount is not paid within one month, the aforesaid amount shall be paid with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till payment.

 

-2-

2.                Facts of the case in short are that the complainant/respondent is using pre-paid SIM no. 96267-35515 of the opposite party/appellant since last 10 years. It is alleged that on the temptations given by the opposite party, he converted the said SIM into post paid of which bills for Rs.300/- to Rs.1,000/- were received by him and he paid the bills regularly. On 04.02.2014 he went to his native village Aajamgarh (UP) as his father is not well. It is alleged that on 24.02.2014 services of his mobile became stopped. When he approached the opposite party’s office he was informed that since the bill exceeds Rs.1,000/- therefore the services were stopped. The complainant alleged that without any intimation or message the opposite party stopped services which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the opposite party and he therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with costs of Rs.5,000/-

3.                The opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the complainant is a literate person and he himself converted the pre-paid SIM into post-paid SIM. The bills were sent regularly and the complainant was also informed through SMS. Since the complainant did not deposit the bills on time, therefore, services of his mobile were stopped of which intimation had already been given to the complainant. It is thus prayed that the

 

-3-

complainant be directed to pay the pending bills and the complaint be dismissed.

4.                Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party/appellant argued that special remedy with regard to Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding the telephone bills is available to the complainant and the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is barred. He argued that the District Commission failed to consider this aspect that the amount was due on the complainant and therefore the complainant was bound to pay the dues. The award of compensation by the District Commission is not based on any evidence. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. The District Commission has not given weightage to the documents and evidence submitted by the opposite party. He therefore argued that the impugned order be set-aside.

5.                Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on due consideration of evidence available on record we find that during roaming facility, the complainant used the services of said number and due to heavy uses the opposite party informed the complainant about the said heavy uses and when the opposite party send the bill to the complainant, he did not pay the same due to which the opposite party company barred the services of said mobile number. Thus the complainant himself is also liable for the services barred by the opposite party.  The complainant did not produce any

-4-

evidence in order to substantiate that he paid the bills for the disputed period i.e. April-2014 onwards. On the other hand, opposite party has filed D-7 to D-15 i.e. bills from March-14 to July-2014.

6.                Be that as it may. We find that for interruption in services all of sudden, the complainant much have caused mental harassment but looking to the conduct of the complainant also, we find that the compensation awarded by the District Commission is on higher side. We find that the interest of justice would meet if we reduce the amount of compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.

7.                Accordingly, we modify the impugned order and direct that the opposite party/appellant company shall pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs to the complainant/respondent.

8.                The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs of this appeal.

 

                (A. K. Tiwari)               (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

            Presiding Member                    Member