DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 150 of 06.06.2007<br /> Decided on : 13-08-2007 <br /> <br /> Tara Singh aged about 45 years S/o Bhagat Singh, R/o H. No. 16791, Basant Vihar, near Aggarwal Colony, Bathinda. <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Spice Communications Private Limited, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Manager/Incharge.<br /> 2.Gopal Agenices (Authorised Distributors, Spice Communications Pvt. Ltd.) Subhash Market, Dhobi Bazar,Bathinda. ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. K K. Vinocha, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite party : Sh. Jaswinder Kohli, Advocate, for opposite<br /> party No. 1. <br /> Sh. Pardeep Sharma , Advocate, for opposite party No. 2. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to give him credit of Rs. 600/- paid by him on 21.4.07 towards mobile connection No. 99140-04933; not to charge any Surcharge on account of default of this amount in subsequent bill; not to disconnect his mobile connection due to default in the payment of amount of Rs. 600/-; pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant lies in the narrow compass as under :<br /> 3. Initially complainant got mobile connection No. 98143-61786 from the opposite parties in annual free talk time scheme on payment of Rs. 11,224/-. He got two add-on mobile connections No. 99140-05933 and 99140-04933 against his aforesaid initial connection as per scheme of opposite party No. 1 and has been making payment of add-on mobile connections regularly from time to time to opposite party No. 1 through its collecting agent i.e. opposite party No. 2. A sum of Rs. 920/- was deposited by him with opposite party No. 2 towards the bill of March-April, 2007 vide delivery challan receipt dated 21.4.07. Thereafter he received another bill for the next month to the tune of Rs. 1500/- wherein Rs. 600/- were shown wrongly as arrears of last month bill towards mobile connection No. 99140-04933. Request was made to correct the bill. Officials of opposite party No. 2 kept original delivery challan receipt and bill with them and after deducting i.e. giving credit of Rs. 600/- got deposited Rs. 900/- against delivery challan receipt dated 21.5.07 for mobile connection No. 99140-04933. On 30.5.07, he had gone to opposite parties to know about new favourable scheme if any launched by them since his mobile connection of annual package was going to expire on 31.5.07. He was told that he was defaulter to the tune of Rs. 600/- since April, 2007. He replied that nothing was due towards him and requested them to check their record. They flatly refused to do any thing saying that record cannot tell lie. They further threatened that they would charge Rs. 1500/- per month against initial connection if the same is not got renewed and renewal will be done only if defaulted amount is cleared. Further threat was given that all the three connections would be disconnected within a few days if defaulted amount of Rs. 600/- was not cleared. It is added by him that opposite parties have not given credit of Rs. 600/-. Opposite parties caused him mental tension, agony and unnecessary harassment.<br /> 4. Opposite party No. 1 filed its version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has not come with clean hands; complaint is false and frivolous; complainant is not consumer and matter is purely commercial in nature as complainant is holding three connections which show that he is using them for his business purposes and as such, this forum has got no jurisdiction. On merits it admits that initially complainant got mobile connection No. 98143-61786 from them in annual free talk time scheme which expired on 31.5.07. He has got 2 add-on connections No. 99140-05933 and 99140-04933 against his aforesaid initial connection as per scheme. As per instructions of the complainant receipt for Rs. 600/- was issued against connection No. 99140-09933 and the remaining payment of Rs. 320/- was for other two connections. Complainant did not deposit the amount of Rs. 600/- against connection No. 99140-04933. Rather amount of Rs. 600/- was deposited against connection No. 99140-09933. Accordingly amount of Rs. 600/- was credited to A/c No. 99140-09933. Subsequently bill was issued to him for Rs. 1500/- in which Rs. 600/- were shown as arrears of last month bill. After receipt of the bill, complainant had brought the matter to its notice that payment of Rs. 600/- has been wrongly got deposited by him in A/c No. 99140-09933. Matter was also brought to the notice of opposite party No. 2. After receiving the request by it and opposite party No. 2, it has credited Rs. 600/- in his account on 2.7.07. There is no negligence on its part. It has happened due to the negligence of the complainant. He did not disclose the actual mobile number. He did not make any request as and when receipt of Rs. 600/- was issued by opposite party No. 2 by mentioning the number of connection No. 99140-09933 inplace of 99140-04933. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 5. Opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant is not consumer; he is holding three connections and as such he is using them for commercial purposes; complicated questions and law and facts are involved which require voluminous evidence and as such, complaint cannot be decided by this forum in summary way and that it can only be decided by civil court and complaint is false and frivolous. Complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands. A sum of Rs. 920/- was deposited by him against three connections out of which Rs. 600/- were of connection No. 99140-09933 as per instructions given by him. Accordingly receipt was issued. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 had sent bill for subsequent month for his all the three connections and Rs. 600/- were shown as arrears in respect of connection No. 99140-04933. Complainant instead of making deposit against connection No. 99140-04933 got deposited amount of Rs. 600/- against connection No. 99140-09933. Thereafter he had visited it saying that he had already deposited Rs. 600/- concerning connection No. 99140-04933 and that amount of Rs. 600/- has been wrongly added as arrears. On his request, it had got deposited the balance amount of Rs. 900/-. He was asked to show the receipt. He had told that the same is lying at his house and would produce it. After a few days, photostat copy of the receipt was brought by him. On perusal, it transpired that initially receipt was got issued regarding connection No. 99140-09933 inplace of connection No. 99140-04933. Accordingly, matter was processed by it at its own level although it was obligatory for him and opposite party No. 1 to look into the matter. After making efforts by it, it was on 2.7.07 that a credit of Rs. 600/- was given to him by opposite party No. 1. Hence, there is no negligence on its part. Complainant himself is negligent in the entire episode as firstly he conveyed wrong number for issuing the receipt and even when the receipt was issued to him, he did not bring the matter to its knowledge. Remaining averments in the complaint stand denied.<br /> 6. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2) and delivery challan (Ex. C-3).<br /> 7. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite party No.1 affidavit of Sh.Ashwinder Bhangu (Ex. R-3), photocopy of Subscriber Application Form (Ex. R-4), photocopy of Application Form of Tara Singh (Ex. R-5), photocopy of terms and conditions (Ex R-6) and on behalf of opposite party No. 2 photocopy of bill dated 21.4.07 (Ex. R-1) and photocopy of account statement (Ex. R-2) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through through the record and written briefs of arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.<br /> 9. Some of the facts become undisputed in this case. They are that initially complainant got connection No. 98143-61786 from the opposite parties in annual free talk time scheme which has expired on 31.5.07. Thereafter he got two add-on mobile connections No. 99140-05933 and 99140-04933. Bill for the month of March-April, 2007 was for Rs. 920/- for all the three connections. Payment of Rs. 920/- was made by him to opposite party No. 1 through its collecting agency i.e. opposite party No. 2 on 21.4.07 vide receipt (delivery challan), copy of which is Ex. R-1. A perusal of this document shows that a sum of Rs. 600/- has been shown to have been deposited towards mobile connection No. 98140-09933. Thereafter bill for the next month for Rs. 1500/- was received by him wherein Rs. 600/- were shown as arrears concerning mobile connection No. 99140-04933. Matter was brought to the notice of opposite party No. 2. A sum of Rs. 900/- was got deposited from him vide challan dated 21.5.07 copy of which is Ex. C-3. Subsequently amount of Rs. 600/- got deposited on 21.4.07, has been adjusted towards mobile connection No. 99140-04933.<br /> 10. One of the legal objection taken by opposite party No. 2 in the reply of the complaint is that complicated questions of law and facts are involved which require voluminous evidence and as such, this forum has got no jurisdiction and that only civil court is competent to decide the complaint.<br /> 11. We have carefully considered the matter concerning this legal objection. Parties have led their evidence. No objection was raised by opposite party No. 2 that more evidence is to be led by it which being voluminous could not be led and that could be produced only before civil court. Moreover, mere fact that some complicated questions of law and facts are involved is itself no ground to hold that District Forum is debarred from entertaining the complaint. In this view of the matter we are fortified by the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the cases of CCI Chambers Co-Op. Housing Society Limited Vs. Development Credit Bank Limited III(2003) CPJ 9 (SC) and J J Merchant and Others Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi and others III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC). <br /> 12. Another objection taken by the opposite parties is that complainant is holder of three connections which are being used by him for commercial purposes i.e. business purposes and such, he is not consumer. Hence, this forum has got no jurisdiction. There is no cogent and convincing evidence of the opposite parties to substantiate it. It is not known for which specific commercial purpose these three connections are being used by him. Allegation of the opposite parties on this aspect of the matter has not gone beyond the stage of allegation. Accordingly connections cannot be said to have been taken for business purposes i.e. commercial purposes.<br /> 13. Mr. Vinocha, learned counsel for the complainant argued that originally mobile connection No. 98143-61786 was obtained by the complainant. He got two add-on mobile connections No. 99140-05933 and 99140-04933 against this initial connection as per scheme of opposite party No. 1. Bill to the tune of Rs. 920/- was deposited by the complainant on 21.4.07 for these connections including connection No. 99140-04933 but opposite party No. 2 instead of connection No. 99140-04933 recorded connection No. 99140-09933 in the delivery challan, copy of which is Ex. R-1, in which a sum of Rs. 600/- has been shown to have been deposited. In the next bill of May, 2007 for Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 600/- were shown as arrears of the last month regarding mobile connection No. 99140-04933. When matter was brought to the notice of opposite party No. 2, complainant was directed to deposit Rs. 900/- which was deposited on 21.4.07 vide delivery challan Ex. C-3 after deducting/giving credit of Rs. 600/- but the opposite parties did not credit the amount of Rs. 600/- in their account paid on 21.5.07. Credit of Rs. 600/- has been given on 2.7.07 i.e. during the pendency of the complaint and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. They have caused mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavits of the complainant which are Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2.<br /> 14. Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that amount of Rs. 600/- was deposited by him on 21.4.07 by telling mobile connection No. 99140-09933. Accordingly this mobile connection was entered in the delivery challan, copy of which is Ex. R-1. Since amount of Rs. 600/- was not deposited towards mobile connection No. 99140-04933, this amount was shown as arrears in the next bill. As and when matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties, credit of Rs. 600/- has been given. Processing of the case was to take some time. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 15. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 16. Onus to prove the case is upon the complainant. He is required to establish it by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. It cannot be said to have been proved on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. So far as affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2 of the complainant are concerned, they stand amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex. R-3 of Sh. Ashwinder Bhangu. It is not the case of the complainant that he is an illiterate person. He has signed the complaint as well as his affidavits in english like well literate person. In this case, it cannot be said with certainty that mobile connection No. 98140-09933 recorded in the delivery challan dated 21.4.07 was certainly recorded due to the fault of opposite party No. 2. It was for the complainant to disclose his mobile connection number while depositing the amount with opposite party No. 2 on 21.4.07. Possibility of disclosing wrong number while depositing Rs. 600/- by the complainant and recording wrong number inplace of correct number by the official of opposite party No. 2 due to inadvertence cannot be ruled out. Delivery challan was issued on 21.4.07 by opposite party No. 2 when amount of Rs. 920/- was deposited by the complainant. In the delivery challan amount of Rs. 600/- has been shown to have deposited against connection No. 99140-09933. Incase complainant had not disclosed this number to opposite party No. 2 at that time, he could raise hue and cry on receiving the delivery challan and could get it corrected then and there. Fact that he remained mum, makes the version of the opposite parties plausible. It is only after he received bill for the next month for Rs. 1500, he knocked the door of opposite party No. 2 and he was allowed to deposit Rs. 900/- out of that bill. So far as the matter regarding credit of Rs. 600/- shown to have been deposited on 21.4.07 against connection No. 99140-09933 is concerned, matter was taken up by opposite party No. 2 with opposite party No. 1 and credit has been shown to have been given on 11.6.07 as is evident from copy of the account statement Ex. R-2. Opposite parties have recorded that credit was given on 2.7.07. It was matter concerning accounts. Amount of Rs. 600/- was wrongly credited for mobile connection No. 99140-09933 inplace of connection No. 99140-04933. Processing of the case was to take some time at various levels. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be held that inordinate delay has been caused by the opposite parties in crediting the amount of Rs. 600/- . Amount of Rs. 900/- was deposited by the complainant on 21.5.07. Without waiting for the result of his request for crediting the amount of Rs. 600/- against his mobile connection No. 99140-04933, he filed complaint before this forum on 6.6.07. Within days after filing the complaint, amount of Rs. 600/- has been credited towards his mobile connection No. 99140-04933. In these circumstances, we find it difficult to hold deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 17. In view of our foregoing discussion, complaint is meritless. Accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to cost.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 13-08-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />