The case of the complainants is as follows:

            Complainant is an Orthopaedic Surgeon working in the Thrissur Co-operative Hospital at Thrissur. The complainant had availed Mobile phoneconnection from the respondents bearing Telephone No.9387101884 on 1/6/2003. At the time of availing connection the complainant had submitted twelve post dated cheques of Rs.1800/- towards part payment of monthly rentals and bill amount. On 16/5/05 the connection was disconnected without any reason. The complainant enquired about the disconnection to the opposite parties customer care center on the same day, but the complainant did not get any satisfactory explanation from them. So the complainant issued a letter on 17/5/05 to the 2^nd opposite party stating the facts and requested them to reconnect the connection. The 2^nd opposite party replied to the said notice on 27/5/05 stating that the cheques issued by the complainant at the time of subscription were all MICR cheques and so the bank did not honour the same. The complainant after receipt of this reply enquired with his bankers about the facts, but the complainant’s bank would said that all the presented cheques by the opposite parties were honoured without any hassle. The complainant has suffered a lot since the disconnection of telephone affected very badly to his carrier. Hence this complaint.

            2.The version in brief is that the complainant availed the Mobile connection from this opposite parties on 12/2/03 and not 1/6/03. It is true that the complainant had handed over 12 post dated cheques at the time of availing the phone connection. The amount covering the cheque was not only for the purpose of rental and bill amount stated in the complaint. Before the barring of the outgoing calls intimation was given to the complainant. The reason for disconnection was due to non payment of monthly charges. At the time of disconnection the outstanding was Rs.1,628.84. The complainant made default from March 2005 onwards. The complainant was at default in honouring post dated cheque dated 11/4/05. There is no mental trauma and loss of reputation. There is no deficiency in service. Hence dismiss.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

1)Is there any deficiency in service?

2)If so reliefs and costs ?

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P11 and Exhibits R1 to R3.

 

            5. Points : The case of complainant is that the mobile phone connection of the complainant was suddenly disconnected by the respondent without any reason. On enquiry it was replied by the respondents that the cheques issued by the complainant were dishonoured. According to the complainant at the time of connection he has issued 12 post dated cheques and there was sufficient balance in his account to honour the cheques. In the counter the respondents stated that the complainant made default from March 2005 onwards and the complainant was at default in honouring post dated cheque dated 11/4/05. According to them the outstanding due amount was Rs.1628.84 at the time of disconnection.

 

            6. We have perused the documents produced by both parties. According to the complainant the act of respondents is illegal land without any reason. According to him there was sufficient balance in his account and there will be no question of dishonour of cheques. According to the respondent on 11/4/05 cheque was bounced. Exhibit P8 is the statement of account which shows that at that time there was sufficient funds in his account and the contention of the respondent is baseless. The respondents had disconnected the service on 16//5/05 and at that time also there was sufficient balance and the disconnection on the basis of bouncing of cheque was illegal. Moreover as per Exhibit P6 there was no case of cheque return from the Savings Bank account of complainant between the period of 1/2/05 and 31/5/05. The allegation of respondents is that on 11/4/05 cheque was bounced. The acts of the respondent in disconnecting the Mobile phone connection alleging nonpayment of charges even after payment, is a serious deficiency in service. Before disconnection no notice was also served. Respondent is alleging that notice was served, but no copy is produced.

 

            7. The complainant being an Orthopaedic surgeon had to suffer due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the respondents. So the complainant is entitled for a compensation for the mental trauma he has suffered.   The complainant is seeking Rs.25,000/- for the loss of reputation. But this relief will not sustain according to us, because there is no possibility of loss of reputation.

 

            8. In the result complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation with costs Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) within one month.

 

            Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 12th day of March 2009.