(Per Justice Mr.M.S.Mhase, Hon’ble President)
(1) In this matter, this complaint has been filed through Adv.Shashank Thatte whose Vakalatnama is on record. The complaint is fixed today for admission; it is at the Sr.No.1 on today’s board. When the complainant was called, Adv.Amit Bhardwaj appeared in the complaint and submitted that he is appearing in the complaint in view of the authority given by Adv.Thatte and produced it on record. We heard Adv.Amit Bhardwaj. In the course of the arguments, we pointed out that prima-facie, the claim made by the complainant appears to be highly inflated and therefore it will be in the interest of the complainant to withdraw and present it before the District Forum. The learned counsel agreed to this and he submitted that he would file a pursis/memo stating that he withdraws the complaint with liberty to present it to District Forum and till he prepares the pursis, the matter be kept back. After few minutes, Adv.Bhardwaj submitted that his senior is coming and senior desires to take instruction from the complainant. So, we kept the matter back. Later on, Adv. Thatte appeared before us and on his request, he is heard.
(3) Complainant in this case appears to be an actor by profession. He has made submission that this caused reputation of the complainant as he is known to the general public as being an actor. The grievance of the complainant is that he is a customer of the Vodafone Mobile and he has taken a mobile connection with a “Plan Talk 299 @ 50 ps” with a pulse rate 60 seconds. He further states that he received a bill for the period from 04/09/2009 to 03/10/2009 for a sum of `1,748.57 ps. Dated 04/10/2009. In respect of this bill, it is a grievance of the complainant that the said bill was not prepared by Vodafone as per the tariff applicable to the Talk Plan and it is found that the opponent has unilaterally changed the plan and calculated the bill amount as per the plan “Talk 100”. Therefore, when he contacted the company on 30/10/2009 and had a talk with Mr.Hardik, a representative of the opponent company, he promised to correct the bill and asked the complainant to pay an amount of `1,249/- with an assurance that the balance sum of `458.57 which was charged extra would be waived. The complainant, on this assurance, made payment of `1,249/- by a cheque dated 19/10/2009 drawn on the Bank of Maharashtra having branch at Tardeo Road, Mumbai-7. The complainant further states that even (for subsequent bill) he paid `2,500/- and contacted the customer care centre of the opponent company and lodged his protest. It is his grievance that thereafter even though his telephone services were suspended, he had received a bill of `2,500/- and which was paid in time by him by a cheques dated 13/11/2009 but it was deliberately credited in the account by the company almost after a month i.e. on 30/12/2009. In the meantime, the persons of the company were constantly telephoning the complainant and harassing to pay the bill to avoid future action and even he had received the calls exhibiting the arm-twisting methods adopted by the opponent. In spite of making payment as per the bills, the cell phone services were not restored. On the contrary, in spite of discontinuing the services, the opponent continued to make the demand of the amount. It is his grievance that as a result of suspension of the cell phone service, his friends, clients etc. could not contact with him and, therefore, he earned disrepute. He submitted that his parents were harassed by the opponent and, thus, on account of this, he claimed `20 lakh and by way of compensation, he is claiming further `50 lakhs. He is also claiming a sum of 10 lakhs for illegal suspension of the cell phone services. We find that, prima-facie, assuming that the services were wrongly discontinued as alleged by the complaint, and, thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent, still considering the nature of deficiency in service, attending circumstance and the material placed on record, supra, no specific circumstances are alleged to justify such huge compensation. Applying the test of reasonableness, prima-facie, the claim appears to be highly inflated. Therefore, these aspects when pointed out to Adv.Bhardwaj, he conceded to it and submitted to withdraw the complaint, but later on appearance of his senior, he tried to justify the pecuniary valuation. We find, the claim is, prima-facie, highly inflated only for the purpose to bring it within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and it is an abuse of the process of law. Holding accordingly, we return the complaint for being presented to appropriate Consumer Fora after properly stating the claim for valuation. Order accordingly.
Pronounced on 30th June, 2011.
