National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Reliance India Mobile Ltd,Mr. Man Mohan vs Hari Chand Gupta on 8 May, 2006
NCDRC
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
CIRCUIT BENCH AT
BANGALORE
REVISION
PETITION No. 53 of
2006
(From the order dated 22.8.2005 Appeal No. 155 of 2005
of the State Commission, Chandigarh, U.T.)
Reliance India Mobile Ltd.
SCO No.24-25, Sector 9-D
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh
Through its authorised Signatory
Petitioner
Versus
Hari Chand Gupta
S/o Shri Sharvan
Kumar
R/o Kurukshetra Nursing
Home
Pipli Road, Kurukshetra-136118
Haryana
Respondent
BEFORE: HONBLE MR.
JUSTICE. M.B.SHAH, PRESIDENT
MRS. RAJYALASHMI RAO, MEMBER.
For the
Petitioner
:
Mr. Man Mohan,
Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ashish Verma,
Advocate.
For the
Respondent
:
In Person
Dated the 8th May,
2006 .
O
R D E R
M.B. SHAH, J., PRESIDENT
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgment and Order dated
13.12.2005 passed in Appeal No. 155
of 2005 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory,
Chandigarh, Petitioner M/s. Reliance India Mobile
Ltd., has preferred this Revision Petition.
The State Commission confirmed the order dated 29.7.2005 passed by the
District Forum-II, Chandigarh, in Consumer Complaint No.1057 of 2004,
and imposed Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-.
Further, the District Forum vide its order dated 29.7.2005 passed in Complaint
No. 1057 of 2004, directed the Petitioner to shift the mobile telephone of the
Complainant from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra region and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as
compensation for deficiency in service and costs of Rs.2,500/-. In default, the
Petitioner was also to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the awarded
amount.
Against the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner has filed this
Revision Petition before this Commission. However, the State Commission further
ordered for initiation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner,
particularly, its authorised signatory, Shri Padamjit Singh, on the ground that he has filed a false
reply and affidavit. For that
purpose, the State Commission has ordered inquiry to be made by the District
Forum under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. read with Sections
195 Cr.P.C. for the offences alleged to have been
committed under Section 191, 192, 193 I.P.C., and to take action against the
authorised signatory, if found guilty.
At the time of hearing of this Revision Petition, learned Senior
Advocate, Mr. Man Mohan, has confined his submission only with regard to
initiation of proceeding to Sec. 340 Cr.P.C. It is his
contention that the direction given by the State Commission is without
jurisdiction, because, at the time of admission of the appeal, the State
Commission had issued notice for the limited purpose of enhancement of
compensation. The said order reads as under:
The sole grievance of the Appellant in this appeal is regarding the
compensation awarded being grossly inadequate and the Appellant prays for
enhancement of the compensation.
The appeal is confined to the quantum of compensation. Issue notice on
this limited point to the Respondent for 3.10.2005. Record of the Complaint Case be requisitioned from District Forum II, U.T.,
Chandigarh
in triplicate.
Complaint:
These proceedings arose from the complaint filed by the Respondent
contending that he is a resident of Kurukshetra
Nursing Home, Pipli
Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana. On 8.3.2003, he had applied for obtaining a
connection of Reliance India Mobile Phone as a member of Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer Club, by
paying full amount of Rs.21,000/- by Cheque drawn on
Punjab State Cooperative Bank, Chandigarh. As
per the scheme,
the Complainant was to receive cell phone through courier at his Chandigarh
address. It is his contention that the Complainant was required to shift his
residence from Chandigarh to
Kurukshetra for health reasons. For this purpose, he
visited the office of the Petitioner at Chandigarh and
filled up the form meant for shifting of mobile phone to his new Kurukshetra address. For this purpose, he has also sent an
e-mail on
8.5.2003 giving intimation of change of address from
Chandigarh to
Kurukshetra.
By letter dated 10.4.2003 the Petitioner intimated the Complainant that
they had extended the period of free usage of mobile phone upto 30.4.2003. However, the Complainant received a bill
dated 1.5.2003 at his Chandigarh
address for the period from 1.4.2003 to 30.4.2003, for a sum of
Rs.224/-.
It is also contended that till the date of filing of the complaint, the
connection of the mobile phone was not shifted from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra, and
hence, he was not able use the same since May, 2003 till date. He has also
relied upon the brochure (The Mobile Revolution Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer Offer
Customer care at your service any time and after sales-service to all promising
very good service) issued by the Petitioner giving
advertisement.
It is his contention that the promises made in the brochure were not
fulfilled and the Complainant was required to suffer a lot. Therefore, a notice
was sent on 9.9.2003 at the Mumbai Office of the Petitioner. Yet, no action was
taken.
It is further submitted that the Complainant was doing share business and
has invested in shares through V.R.S. Securities Ltd.,
Ludhiana
and for this purpose, he is required to keep in touch with the share broker to
update himself with regard to the share market and for this purpose, he has
taken the telephone. Because of the deficiency in service by the Petitioner he
had suffered monetary and financial loss.
He, therefore, prayed that the Petitioner be directed to shift the mobile
phone connection of the Complainant from Chandigarh
to Kurukshetra and to give all benefits which would
have been accrued to the Complainant during the period from May, 2003, as
non-user of the mobile. He has also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service and unfair trade
practice with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from May 2003, and the cost of
litigation.
Findings:
A.
Section
340 of Cr.P.C.
As stated above,(a) this complaint was
partly allowed by the District
Forum. It was held that as no shifting of telephone from Kurikshetra Region to Chandigarh
Region was
made, it was a case of proven
negligence and deficiency in service.
The District Forum, therefore, directed the Petitioner to
shift the mobile phone and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation with
costs at Rs.2,500/-.
(b)
The appeal was filed by the Complainant only for enhancement of
compensation. That appeal was partly allowed. The State Commission had not enhanced the
compensation, but has awarded Rs.50,000/- as punitive
damages and the cost of appeal was quantified at
Rs.5,000/-.
From the facts stated above, it is amply clear that the State Commission
has issued notice for the limited purpose, that too, only for enhancement of
compensation. Compensation, as
stated above, was enhanced. In such set of circumstances, there was no question
of directing District Forum to hold inquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and to initiate proceedings. As such, no ground
is made out for holding such inquiry. It appears that there were some mistakes
in giving computerised bills, with regard to due date of payment, etc. But, that
would hardly be a ground for arriving at a conclusion that the said bills were
fabricated. However, it
is not in dispute
that in affidavit, incorrect statement has been made to the effect
that mobile connection of the complainant was transferred from Chandigarh
to Kurukshetra and a new No. i.e. 01744-311784 was
allotted. Admittedly, new number
was given as stated above, but it was not transferred from
Chandigarh to
Kurukshetra.
The Petitioner has also produced on record some bills for the use of the
telephone were
also unjustified. In
any case, those bills were given to the Complainant prior to filing of the
complaint. In such cases, if the Complainant was aggrieved, he ought to have
filed a criminal complaint, if at all he considered the said facts to be
offence.
Further, normally, in such type of cases it would be futile to initiate proceedings under Sec.340 of Cr.P.C. Law on this subject is settled by a decision of the
larger Bench of the Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwan & Anr. (2005) 4
SCC 370 wherein it is observed
thatJudicial notice could be taken of the fact
that the courts are normally reluctant to direct filing of a criminal complaint
and such a course is rarely adopted.
Further, after considering various decisions, the Court in pr.23 held as
under:
23.
In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC
the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an
offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the
section is conditioned by the words court is of opinion that it is expedient in
the interests of justice. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if
the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the
complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the
effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be
made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This
expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of
injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but
having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon
administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery
may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it
may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such
document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court,
where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of
evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In
such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of
justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the
appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document
remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a
crime is rendered remediless, has to be
discarded.
Finally it is held (in para.33) that Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated
in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it
has been produced or given in evidence
in a proceeding in any Court, i.e. during the time when the document was
in custodia legis.
In the present case, the alleged bills were all throughout in existence
even prior to the filing of the complaint. Therefore, it was open to the
Complainant to file a private complaint, if aggrieved.
However, for filing false and incorrect affidavit before the Consumer
Fora that
the telephone was shifted from Chandigarh
to Kurukshetra, appropriate action is required to be
taken against the petitioner. It
should be borne in mind
that Consumer Fora are required to decide the matter speedily and render equitable justice to the
consumer. The practice of making
false and incorrect statements and the practice of denial of each and every
sentence submitted by the claimant/complainant without any justifiable
ground,
requires to be controlled.
For false affidavits or misleading statements in a
pending proceedings deponents are required to be dealt appropriately by
imposing punitive damages so that in future they or others may not indulge in
such practice.
In this view of the matter,
punitive
damages are
required to be
enhanced.
B.
Punitive
Damages :
Complainant who is appearing in person submitted that punitive damages of
Rs.50,000/-
are totally inadequate. For the wrongs done by such a big company,
adequate compensation/punitive damages ought to have been awarded.
It is true that adequate compensation is required to be awarded in
appropriate cases. It is also
true that the Complainant moved from Chandigarh to
Kurukshetra. For this purpose, he had applied for
shifting of his telephone from Chandigarh
region to Kurukshetra region. For some unknown reason,
that was not done. There are also some errors with regard to the
issuance of computerised bill.
As stated above,
false statement has been made in the affidavit that phone of the
complainant was shifted from
Chandigarh
region to Kurukshetra region. On this ground, the State Commission has
directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages. In our view, for making
such false statement in the affidavit by the officer of the Reliance Infocomm Ltd.
Petitioner, the amount is not sufficient. Punitive damages are required to
be enhanced so that in future officers of the Petitioner nor officers of other such big
companies indulge in such practices.
Hence, we increase the said punitive damages to Rs.1,50,000/- . Out
of this
amount of Rs.1,50,000/-,
Rs.1,00,000/- shall be
deposited with this Commission for depositing the same with Consumer Welfare
Fund and Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the Complainant. In addition, Petitioner shall pay to the
Complainant
Rs.10,000/- compensation and also Rs.2500/- as costs of litigation
as awarded by the District Forum
and also Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation in the appeal before the State
Commission.
In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is partly allowed.
The direction of the State Commission regarding initiating inquiry under Sec.340
Cr.P.C. against Padamjit
Singh is set aside. The order
passed by the State Commission imposing punitive damages is modified. The Petitioner is directed to pay
Rs.1,50,000/- as punitive damages. Out of that amount, Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the
complainant and remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited with this
Commission for depositing the same with Consumer Welfare Fund. There shall be no order as to
costs. The petition stands disposed
of accordingly.
Sd/-
....J.
(M.B.SHAH)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
......
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO) MEMBER