Date of Filing:13.08.2007<br /> Date of Order: 23.01.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1728 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> <br /> Rathan Singh,<br /> No.251, III Floor,<br /> I Main, 7th Cross,<br /> Prakash Nagar,<br /> Opp: Navarang Road,<br /> Bangalore-560021. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Managing Director,<br /> Tata Tele Services Ltd.,<br /> ‘A’ Block, Silicon Terrace,<br /> No.30/1, Hosur Main road,<br /> Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore-560 095. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This is complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. <br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant has taken Tata Indicom mobile phone connections. As per the offer of the opposite party the calls made from Tata Mobile to another Tata Mobile all calls are free. But all of a sudden the bill sent for the month of April-2007 from 8/4/2007 to 7/5/2007 calls made from Tata Indicom to Tata Indicom mobile was charged. The action of opposite party is highly unjustified and illegal. Complainant got issued legal notice. Notice was served. Notice was not replied nor rectified the mistake. The opposite party disconnected the mobile connection without giving proper information to the complainant. This caused mental agony and loss in the business of the complainant. There is a deficiency of service and therefore, the opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- of mental agony and also loss in business. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Notice was served. In spite of service of notice the opposite party has not appeared through this Forum and opposite remained absent.<br /> 3. The point for consideration is:-<br /> Whether there was a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 4. We have gone through the complaint and the documents produced by the complainant. The complainant has produced previous bills of both the mobile connections. By perusing the bills earlier to the disputed bill it is clear that the opposite party had given discount to both the mobile connections. But all of a sudden in the bill for the month of May-2007 the opposite party has not given discount to the Mobile No. 9243159091. This indicates that there is a clear case of deficiency in service. The opposite party admittedly had not issued notice to the complainant informing that they are not allowing discount to the mobiles. The opposite party admittedly had given discount to the complainant in all the previous bills, but no reasons are foregoing as to why discount was not given for the bill of May-2007. Therefore, the case of the complainant has to be accepted and the opposite party shall be directed not to recover the bill amount as per the bill issued for the month of May-2007. The opposite party has not appeared and contested the matter. The case made out by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite party even has not cared to reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant. Therefore, the bill for the month of May-2007 is not proper and it has no basis at all. It requires to be set aside. The opposite party shall give discount to the mobile connections of the complainant as earlier and shall issue revised bill to the complainant. The complainant has claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony. This amount is exaggerated amount. No specific reasons are given for claiming such big amount as compensation. It is not a case to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that, his mobile connections have been disconnected by the opposite party. Therefore, he has suffered loss in his business and also suffered mental agony. Even if mobile services are disconnected in that connection it cannot be accepted or believed that the complainant sustained loss of Rs.50,000/- due to the disconnection. Therefore, it is not proper and just to grant compensation to the complainant. However, the opposite party can be directed that they are not entitled to recover the bill amount for the month of May-2007 since no discount was given to the mobile No. 9243159091. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed not to proceed with the recovery of amount for the month of May-2007. The opposite party is directed to give a revised bill by giving discount to the Mobile No.9243159091 to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to Rs.500/- towards costs of the present proceedings. <br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />