Bombay High Court
Bindu Narang vs Matrix Cellular (International) on 17 July, 2019
Author: S.J. Kathawalla
Bench: Akil Kureshi, S.J. Kathawalla
Uday S. Jagtap 2977-18-wp-7=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2977 OF 2018
Bindu Narang .. Petitioner
v/s.
Matrix Cellular (International) Services
P. Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. A. Bhadang a/w Mr. Ishwar Nankani and Ms. Taniya D'Souza I/b Nankani Associates for the petitioner Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for the respondent State None for respondent no.1 CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.J. DATED : 17 th JULY, 2019 P.C.
1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 27 th December, 2017 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Mumbai District and Suburban Bandra, Mumbai in Application No.8343 of 2015. Under such order, the application of the respondent no.1 - Telecom Service Provider was allowed. The respondent herein i.e. the present petitioner
- consumer of said service was held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 28,981/- with interest. On 29th March, 2019, the Division Bench of this Court had granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) i.e. staying the order subject to the condition that the petitioner should deposit the 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2019 01:46:36 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 2977-18-wp-7=.doc said amount in terms of the impugned order, before the Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that an amount of Rs.29,740/- has been deposited.
2. On 26th June, 2019 we had recorded that despite service, no one even present for respondent no.1 - service provider. We also noted that on the next date of hearing, the Court may proceed to hear the petition finally. On 3rd July, 2019 it was recorded that the advocate for the respondent no.1 had requested for an adjournment. The petition was adjourned to 17th July, 2019.
3. Today, once again no one is present for respondent no.1 when the matter was called out for hearing. We find that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's limit of consumption of telecom service was Rs.3,500/-. If the petitioner use in any manner, therefore, exceeded the said sum, the service provider ought to have discontinued the said service.
4. Under the circumstances, we are inclined to admit the petition. There will be no use to retain the amount deposited by the petitioner till final disposal of the petition.
2 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2019 01:46:36 :::
Uday S. Jagtap 2977-18-wp-7=.doc
5. The petition is admitted.
6. The amount of Rs.29,740/- deposited by the petitioner by order dated 29th March, 2019 shall be returned by the Registry to the petitioner after verification on the condition that the petitioner shall file an undertaking that if ultimately the petition is dismissed, the petitioner will pay the said sum.
(S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.) 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2019 01:46:36 :::