THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.180/2017
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2019
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B. : Member
ORDER
Present: Hon’ble Sri. Joseph Mathew, Member
This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Petitioner’s case is that, he is a post-paid subscriber of Reliance Communication Mobile phone from December 2016 onwards. The total monthly bill amounts comes Rs.442/- including taxes. He was remitting the bill amounts from January 2017 onwards till April 2017 without fault. But on 29/04/2017 the opposite parties barred his outgoing calls. The reasons stated was that he has not paid the bill amount. His bill amount during the month of April 2017 was Rs.442/-. At the time of taking connection he had paid Rs.300/- as advance amount and the 1st opposite party told him that after three months they will deduct Rs.100/- each from the following monthly bill amounts and so he had remitted only Rs.342/- towards the bill amount of April 2017 after deducting Rs.100/- from the said bill amount at the 1st opposite party shoP.
It is further stated that from 03/05/2017 onwards the opposite parties had cut his incoming calls also. The said act of the opposite parties caused heavy financial loss to the tune of Rs.90,000/- in his taxi car business as well as other hardships in his personal life also.
The disconnection of mobile service even after payment of bill amounts is unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. This caused huge financial loss in his business as well as much mental agony and other hardships in his life. Hence this petition is filed to direct the opposite parties to pay him a total amount of Rs.90,000/- as compensation for his business loss, mental agony and other hardships suffered and also the litigation expenses.
The opposite parties appeared but the 1st opposite party didn’t filed version. Hence the 1st opposite party set ex-parte.
The 2nd opposite party filed version denying all the allegation of the petitioner as false and baseless. It is contended that this petition is filed without any bonafieds after suppressing material facts with intent to make undue enrichment at their cost. It is admitted that they are the service provider and the 1st opposite party is their franchise.
It is stated that the payment of the bill amount on 26/04/2017 as alleged by the petitioner was not known to them and even if any payment was done that was not updated in their billing system by the 1st opposite party and so the bill remains unpaid. All the payments towards the petitioner’s mobile number 9388958572 was delayed payment. The total dues as on 01/04/2017 for the said mobile was Rs.340/-. As no payment was made, outgoing calls are barred but incoming calls were not barred. It is stated that billing system is controlled by computer and not manually. Once payment is pending against invoices outgoing calls will be barred and even after payment is not made MDN will be automatically terminated by the system after 90 days from the date of invoice which is pending. The petitioner was aware of the dues and would have been more aware when outgoing calls was barred. Sufficient time was given to the petitioner to avoid suspension and termination. So the disconnection was effected due to the fault of the petitioner himself and so no deficiency in service can be attributed on them for the disconnection of the petitioner’s mobile service. They are not liable for the alleged business loss if any or any other inconveniences suffered by the petitioner due to the disconnection of his mobile. The compensation claimed is arbitrary and without any basis. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with their cost.
The matters for determinations are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Reliefs and costs if any?
Evidence consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner, Ext.s A1 to A4 and deposition of PW1.
Point No. 1: According to the petitioner he was not a defaulter of bill payment and was paying bill amounts to the 1st opposite party without fault. But even then the opposite parties disconnected his incoming and outgoing call facilities from 03/05/2017 onwards. But according to the 2nd opposite party as per bill dated 11/03/2017 an amount of Rs.340/- was pending dues towards the bill amount of the petitioner’s mobile as on 01/04/2017 and that is why they had disconnected his connection. It is also stated that even if the said amount is paid to the 1st opposite party that was not updated in their billing system by the 1st opposite party. Ext. A1 is the copy of invoice dated 26/04/2017 issued by the 1st opposite party to the petitioner for the receipt of Rs.340/- towards the bill amount. Ext. A2, A3 and A4 are also the copies of invoices for different months issued by the 1st opposite party to the petitioner for the reception of amounts from the petitioner towards his bill amounts. Thus Ext.s A1 to A4 invoices shows that the petitioner was always paying the bill amounts directly to the 1st opposite party. The disputed bill amount pending as arrear according to the 2nd opposite party is Rs.340/- as on 01/04/2017 which leads to the disconnection of the petitioner’s mobile service on 03/05/2017. But Ext. A1 shows that the petitioner had paid the said amount of Rs.340/- on 26/04/2017 itself to the 1st opposite party. If the 1st opposite party has not updated the amount in the billing system of the 2nd opposite party, then the petitioner or the 2nd opposite party is not liable for the same and the 1st opposite party alone is responsible. The 1st opposite party has not filed any version or adduced any evidence challenging the allegations of the petitioner or the veracity of Ext. A1 invoice and so the case of the petitioner against the 1st opposite party stands unchallenged and proved.
Point No. 2: Evidence shows that the petitioner had paid the disputed bill amount of Rs.340/- to the 1st opposite party on 26/04/2017 itself. But according to the 2nd opposite party the said amount was not credited to their account by the 1st opposite party. In this circumstance we are of the view that no deficiency in service can be attributed on the 2nd opposite party for disconnecting petitioner’s mobile service for non-payment of the bill amount and the 1st opposite party alone is responsible for the same causing financial loss and other hardships to the petitioner and hence the 1st opposite party is liable to compensate the petitioner for his financial loss and other sufferings.
Though the petitioner stated that he had suffered a financial loss of Rs.90,000/- due to the disconnection of his mobile service, no convincing evidence was produced by him to prove his loss. So the demand for the said amount is not allowed as such. But he is entitled to get a reasonable amount as compensation for his sufferings.
Considering the facts stated and evidence on re3cord the following order is passed.
The 1st opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) as compensation for his loss and sufferings and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the whole amount will carry 9% interest per annum from the date of default till payment.
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2019
Date of filing: 05/06/2017
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Order Form/Delivery Challan dated 26/04/2017
A2. Copy of Order Form/Delivery Challan dated 26/07/2017
A3. Order Form/Delivery Challan dated 24/06/2017
A4. Order Form/Delivery Challan dated 23/03/2017
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Mukesh (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
