COMPLAINT FILED: 27.09.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 20th NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2119/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Vishwanath P. Bhat,<br /> Aged 47 years,<br /> S/o. Sri. Parameshwar Bhat,<br /> Residing at 645,<br /> 12th Main, II Block,<br /> Rajajinagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 010.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (Srinivas Bhat)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Regional / Circle Manager,<br /> Bharati Airtel Limited,<br /> 55, Divyashree Towers,<br /> Bannerghatta Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 029.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (B.J. Mahesh)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant is having an airtel mobile No. 9900551330 with account No. 105-101789160 on a monthly tariff plan with a rental of Rs.199/- of Bharati Airtel. Complainant is prompt in making payment of the bills raised by the OP. As per the bill issued on 18th March 2008 covering a period from 17th February to 16th March 2008 he paid Rs.480/- as against the claim of Rs.453.79 vide cheque No. 516063 dated 03.04.2008 drawn on Indian Bank, K.G. Road, Bangalore. The said cheque was cleared, which is evident by looking into the pass book. With all that the subsequent bill issued by the OP for the period 17.03.2008 to 16.04.2008 included the earlier claim as a balance and made a total claim of Rs.1,297.36. Immediately complainant contacted the OP office and explained about the payment, OP officials being satisfied with the said explanation directed him to pay only Rs.843.58, which he promptly paid. With all that unfortunately OP did not correct themselves, they went on issuing the subsequent bills including the said amount of Rs.453.78 as balance. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP complainant issued the legal notice on 25.07.2008. Again there was no response. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant issued the cheque noting account No. 105-101861168 instead of mentioning his account No. 105-101789160. So the said cheque went to the account of another subscriber Sri. K.V. Lakshminarashiman. So there is no fault lies with the OP. As the complainant failed to make payment of the amount in due naturally OP included the said amount in due in subsequent bills also. The contention of the complainant that the OP admitted their fault and advised him to pay only Rs.843.58 is false. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. In order to have a good rapport and the customer friendly approach with a good gesture OP is ready to credit the said amount of Rs.480/- to the account of the complainant. Under such circumstances OP is not liable to pay compensation. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the services of the OP to his mobile phone and OP has raised the bill dated 18.03.2008 covering a period 17.02.2008 to 16.03.2008 and claimed Rs.453.79. According to the complainant he paid the said amount vide cheque No. 516063 dated 03.04.2008 for Rs.480/- drawn on Indian Bank, K.G. Road, Bangalore. Of course OP has admitted the receipt of the said cheque. Now the defence of the OP is that as admitted by the complainant he has been allotted with the Account No. 105-101789160, but unfortunately complainant may be through inadvertence or oversight mentioned the account number in the said cheque as 105-101861168. Actually that account belongs to one K.V Lakshminarashiman and the cheque amount went to his account, who is also the subscriber of the OP. So there is no fault on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. Of course complainant has not disputed the fact that he mentioned the account number in the said cheque as 105-101861168, but still when complainant approached the OP officials about the payment of the said amount within the due date, it would have been more fair on the part of the OP to cross check and intimate the complainant. According to the complainant, OP officials admitted the mistake and asked him to pay only Rs.843.58 as against the claim of Rs.1,297.36 vide bill dated 18.04.2008. OP has denied this fact, but still when complainant approached the OP there must have been some discussions with regard to the payment of the same. Evenafter coming to know of the said mistake crept in may be accidentally or inadvertently, it would have been more fair on the part of the OP to rectify it and convince its customer, but OP failed to do so. Here we find the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. Of course OP with all fairness without prejudice to their legal rights has come forward to credit the said amount of Rs.480/- to the account of the complainant as a goodwill gesture. This is to be appreciated and that would have been the end of the dispute. With regard to the mental agony and so called financial loss suffered by the complainant, bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, the justice will be met by awarding a nominal compensation of Rs.500/- and a litigation cost of Rs.100/-. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.500/-, litigation cost of Rs.100/- and credit Rs.480/- to the account of the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />