BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Monday the 01st day of November , 2010
C.C.No 03/10
Between:
Y.Ramesh Kumar, S/o. Y.Sahal Saren, Opp. B.Lakshmikantha Reddy
HP Dealers House, Upstairs, Gandhi Nagar,Yemmiganur, Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1 U.T.Y and Sons Cellular, Rep. by its Proprietor,
Park Road, Yemmiganur - 518 360, Kurnool District.
- Idea Cellular Ltd., Rep.by its Proprietor,
KLK Estate, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad-500 001.
…Opposite ParTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. Ch. Joga Rao, Advocate, for complainant, and opposite party No.1 is called absent set ex-parte and Sri. S.V.Krishna Reddy , Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 03/10
- This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OPs
- to refund the deposit amount of Rs.540/- to the complainant
with interest @24% p.a from the date of the deposit till the
date of realization .
- to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony
- and suffering meted out to the complainant
- to award costs of Rs.10,000/- for the deficient and negligent
service of the OPs
- to award costs of this complaint , future interest and to pass
other relief or releifs as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2) The case of the complainant in brief is as follows::- The complainant is a subscriber of Idea Cellular from the year 2003. He made an application on 23-11-2003 for mobile service and paid deposit of Rs.540/- . OP.No.1 issued receipt No. 28 dated 23-11-2003 in token of receipt of deposit amount. The complainant was allotted mobile cell Nos. 9848114506 / 9848284506. From the date of becoming subscriber the complainant is paying bills promptly. The complainant paid the bills for the months May, June, July, August, September and October, 2008 and obtained receipts. No amount is due to the Ops by the complainant. Surprisingly on 30-10-2008 complainant’s cell phone suffered from disconnection. The cell phone of the complainant is disconnected for want of payment of the bill. Though the complainant is not a defaulter an account of the disconnection of the cell phone connection the complainant suffered mental agony. There was deficiency of service by the OPs. The OPs are unfair and caused trouble to the complainant. There was no response for the legal notice got issued by the complainant on account of inferior service extended by the OPs . The complainant was defamed in the eyes of the public in general. The complaint is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony caused to him due to the negligence of the Ops. Hence the complaint.
3. OP.No.1 remained ex-parte. OP.No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is a subscriber of Idea Cellular under mobile connection Nos. 9848114506 / 9848284506. The mobile service of the complainant was not disconnected on 30-10-2008. There is no deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the OP.No.2. OP.No.2 never disconnected the mobile service of the complainant but to get wrongful gain the complainant filed the complaint with false allegations. Since there is no disconnection of mobile service of complainant by the OP, question of mental agony to complainant does not arise. The forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The compensation amount claimed by the complainant is excessive and it is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A11 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties no documents are marked and sworn affidavit of OP.No.2 is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP ?
(ii) whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
(iv) To what relief?
7. Point No.1 & 2: Admittedly the complainant is a subscriber of Idea Cellular and his mobile connection numbers are 9848114506 / 9848284506. The complainant paid the idea mobile bills under Ex.A1 to A6 for the months of March, 2008 to October, 2008 is not under dispute. It is the case of the complainant that his mobile service connections were disconnected even though he paid the bills regularly. According to the complainant he is not a defaulter in payment of the monthly idea mobile bills. According to the OPs the mobile service connections of the complainant were not at all disconnected and that the complainant filed the complaint in order to gain wrongfully. The complainant in his sworn affidavit has stated that on 30-10-2008 the mobile service connections of the complainant were disconnected by the ops even though he paid the bills regularly. In the sworn affidavit filed on behalf of the OP.No.2 it is stated that there was no disconnection of mobile services of the complainant by the OP. It is for the complainant to show that his services connections were disconnected by the OPs on 30-10-2008. Except oath against oath there is no independent evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the service connections of the complainant were disconnected on 30-10-2008 alleging that he failed to pay the bills regularly. The complainant did not place any material on record to show his mobile connections were disconnected by the OPs. There was no necessity for OPs to disconnect mobile service connections of the complainant had he paid the bills regularly unless it is proved that the service connections of the complainant were disconnected by the Ops it can not be said that there was deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. No doubt the complainant prior to the filling of the complaint got issued a legal notice to the OPs stating that his mobile service connections were disconnected alleging that the bills were not paid. The ops having received the legal notice did not give any reply. Merely because the OPs did not give any reply for the notice got issued by the complainant it can not be presumed that the OPs disconnected the mobile service connection for the complainant. As already stated there is no material to come to the conclusion that the mobile service connection of the complainant were disconnected by the OPs on 30-10-2008. Therefore the contention of the complainant that he suffered mental agony cannot be believed. It is not establish that there was deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Therefore the complaint is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
8 Point No3: In the result the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances no costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 01st day of November, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Receipt No.28 towards Deposit Amount dt.23-11-2003.
Ex.A2. Office copy of Receipt No. 3876 dt.04-06-2008
.
Ex.A3. Cash Receipt dt.02-07-2008 for Rs.740/-
Ex.A4. Cash Receipt dt. 30-07-2008 for Rs.700/-
Ex.A5. Cash Receipt for August,2008 for Rs.700/-
Ex.A6. Cash Receipt for 04-10-2008 for Rs.727/-
Ex.A7. Cash Receipt No.3802 dt.-03-11-2008 for Rs.810/-
Ex.A8. Office copy of legal notice dt.08-07-2009.
Ex.A9. Postal receipts and acknowledgement .
Ex.A10. Returned cover of OP1.
Ex.A11. Original Sims of Mobile 9848114506/9848284506
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
