Order no. 28    Date 07/08/2009

The complainant, Mr. Avijit Kr. Sen, by filing a petition u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to pay a compensation to the tune ofRs.4,10,000/- and such other order or orders as the Ld. Forum may deem fit and proper.

          The complainant is a Vodafone mobile phone service customer having no.9830468036 of post paid system. His billing period is on and from the 15^th day of each month to the 14^th day of the next month. Since he was suffering from congenital heart disease along with some other problems, he had to undergo an operation at Narayana Hrudayalaya at Bangalore on 25^th May, 2005, vide annex-A. Before leaving for by pass heart surgery at Bangalore. The complainant deposited Rs.500/- to the o.p. no.1 for national roaming connection in respect of the said phone on 15.05.05 and subsequently, it was activated. But in spite of having no outstanding bill for payment, the outgoing facility of the said mobile phone was withdrawn by the o.p. no.1 without assigning any reason vide annex-B. And o.p. no.1 sent the bill for the period of May 15^th to June 14^th of 2005 after charging a sum of Rs.49/- as new national roaming for the period from 15.5.05 to 14.5.05 and a further sum of Rs.49/- on the same ground for the period from 15.6.05 to 14.7.05 in the said bill dt.15.6.05 as annexed and marked ‘C’.

          By letter dt.23.6.05, the complainant made a written complaint to the o.p. no.1 stating his harassment and dissatisfaction with the attitude of the o.p. And o.p. no.1 vide letter dt.30.6.05, annex-E, replied stating therein that the security deposit of Rs.500/- has been adjusted against the invoice outstanding dt.15.6.05 and informed the petitioner that his outstanding bill amount was Rs.3891.98. And the petitioner deposited the same on 4.7.05 by cheque no.841178 dt.4.7.05 and lodged a complaint letter on the same date vide annex-F, stating therein no Rs.53.99 of rental charges was credited to his subsequent bill as was assured by the o.p. no.1 vide letter dt.30.6.09, annex-E. In letter dt.4.7.05, annex-F, the complainant also categorically stated the losses he suffered following such illegal disconnection by o.p. no.1, for which he could not consult his doctors after open heart surgery. And he suffered mental agony, tension, loss of health, loss of prestige and dignity. Even he could not have a talk with his relatives and all these tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. Notices were served upon the o.ps. on 26.10.05. And after a long time gap when the matter was proceeding ex parte against o.p., o.p. appeared on 28.7.06 and they filed w/v or in said other words affidavit-in-opposition after the ex parte order was duly recalled subject to payment of cost of Rs.300/- And in their w/v they have not assigned any specific reason for their sudden disconnection besides referring to the ‘TRAI-Press Release No.54 of 2005 issued in May 2005’. TRAI regulation says that the credit limit set for the subscriber’s mobile connection, a post paid connection, shall be intimated to the customer in advance. And in order to avoid disconnection, the subscriber’s shall not exceed the credit limit and when the usage and other applicable charges reach 80% of the credit limit, an intimation to this effect shall be provided to the subscriber along with some other important information as stated in para 6(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g). But the complainant in his affidavit in reply to the o.ps’ affidavit in opposition stated vide para 10 that the o.p. did not comply with the terms and conditions of this regulation. O.p. never intimated the complainant about his credit limit or whatever is stated in para6; sub para (a) to (g) of their affidavit in opposition. Complainant further stated that the o.p. did not annex any copy of the Press Release No.54 of 2005 with their affidavit of opposition issued by the TRAI. Complainant also stated in the same para that the o.p. never made any call informing him to increase his credit limit or pay any outstanding bill. O.ps have not even stated all these facts in their letter dt.30.6.05, not even any notice was served upon the complainant stating the unbilled due amount prior to the date of deactivation of the outgoing facility i.e. 6.6.06. So, o.ps. were deficient in providing service in his crucial phase of life, i.e. just immediately after his open heart surgery, the outgoing facility of the mobile phone in question was withdrawn.

          Decision with reason :

          There is no denial of the fact by the o.p. that the complainant was not a regular defaulter in paying his phone bills. He duly deposited the required amount for National Roaming of Rs.500/- to avail this facility which he required during his open heart surgery for the purpose of consulting his physicians and relatives at Kolkata from Bangalore for the period of 15.5.05 to 14.5.05. But on 6.6.05, the outgoing facility was withdrawn although in the bill dt.15.6.05, the o.p.  no.1 has charged Rs.98/- for New National Roaming i.e. Rs.49/- from 15.5.05 to 14.6.05 and 15.6.05 to 14.7.05 for that service, which the o.p. did not provide. And in letter dt.30.6.05, the o.p. informed the complain ant that Rs.500/- and Rs.53.99 have been adjusted to his bill amount dt.15.6.05. But the point to be considered here is that whether mere reversal of money would justify their act of disconnection without giving any proper intimation to the complainant, when he was passing through a very crucial stage of his life. The answer is simple ‘No’. While taking deposit money of Rs.500/- for the activation of National Roaming, the o.p. should have intimated the complainant about the credit limit and other important terms and conditions of TRAI Press Release No.54 before hand. Besides, in annex-B of the complaint petition, there was no intimation to the complainant by the o.p. and that too, is only one line message without assigning any reason. And in letter dt.30.6.05, the o.p. informed the complainant that Rs.500/-, which was deposited by the complainant as security deposit for availing National Roaming, has been adjusted to the post paid account of the complainant and thereby they admitted their deficiency in providing service to the complainant. Accordingly, the present case succeeds on merit and contest. Fees paid are correct.

          Hence,

                   Ordered,

          That the o.p. is directed to refund Rs.53.99 (Rupees fifty three and paise ninety nine) only as rental charges to the complainant. The o.p. is further directed to pay a compensation to the tune ofRs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only and the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, it will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization.

          Copy of this order be supplied to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.