State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Prashant Narula, vs Reliance Infocomm Services, on 11 April, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.) Date of decision :11.04.2008 Appeal No. FA-08/111 (Arising from order dated 14.1.2008 passed by the District Forum-II, New Delhi, Barracks, K.G. Marg, New New Delhi, in Compliant case No. C-756/07) Prashant Narula, B-1/602 A, Janak Puri, New Delhi -110058 ..Appellant Through Sh. Gautam Das, Advocate Versus M/s Reliance Infocomm Services, 5th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ..Respondent Thorugh Sh. Rohit Jain, Advocate CORAM Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member1
Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the Judgement.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)
1. Counsel for the respondent has appeared on his own by way of caveat and argued the matter, hence we are deciding the appeal on merits.
2. Vide impugned order dated 14th January, 2008 passed by the District Forum, the respondent has been held deficient in service who had admitted during the proceedings that the security amount was not refunded to appellant prior to filing of the instant complaint and directed to pay Rs. 2000/-as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as cost of litigation.
Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation as to the mental harassment suffered by the appellant, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. Appellant is a Principal in a Public School and was subscriber of the telecom services provided by the respondent - Reliance Communication Limited. As per his allegation he used the above said services of the respondent upto July, 2006 and due to poor services and the substandard telephone instrument provided by the respondent, appellant was forced to request for the disconnection of the said services. That at the time of said request for disconnection there was a balance security deposit of Rs. 1001/- which remained pending against the respondent.
The Collection Executive who received the Telephone Instrument, Adapter FSW, collected the balance sum of Rs. 146/- subtracting security amount of Rs. 10001/- vide receipt No. OK L 56E862150 dated 24.7.2006. However, appellant kept on receiving phone calls on his telephone for payment of bills which created disturbances during the meetings, seminars and other important works. Again a collection executive came to the school of the appellant in the name of collecting balance amount of Rs. 1001/- on 22.8.2006 and started shouting at the appellant on top of his voice in front of other school staff, without listening to the requests and clarification of appellant regarding adjustment of the said amount.
However, the executive did not listen to the appellant and insisted for the payment of the said sum of Rs. 1001/-. Hence the appellant under protest issued a cheque of Rs. 1001/- vide cheque no. 022322 dated 22.8.2006 drawn on ICICI Bank and the said executive acknowledged the payment of the above mentioned amount. Surprisingly the appellant got a letter addressed as Urgent & Important from Mr. Pawan Rohtagi, Head Billing & Collection on 31.10.2006 for the payment of alleged due amount from the appellant amounting to Rs. 1229/- alleging outstanding against MDN No. 1132939966, without verifying the records from their office with a threatening to the appellant of facing / holding responsible for the cost and consequence of probable legal proceedings.
3. Appellant got various calls from the respondent telecallers regarding the alleged payments of the bill, forcing thereby the appellant to write letter to the respondent on 9.11.2006 giving details of the events of payments made by the appellant and the continuos disturbing phone calls made by the executives of the respondent with a request to do the needful to stop causing unnecessary harassment and tension. Respondent started getting threatening phone calls to be booked under various sections of IPC for non-payment , in spite of saying that he has already made payments and awaiting the payments to be made by the respondent in respect of his security deposit. But the respondent did not stop calling the appellant for the alleged bill amount. Again the appellant sent letter dated 21.11.2006 through speed post to the respondent and referred all previous communications, requests, reminders and subsequent unnecessary harassment and mental tensions with a final reminder. However, the respondent kept on sending vague vexatious bills to the appellant out of blue. When the appellant was not in town, the office clerk of the respondent paid one of said illegal /arbitrary bill for the period 11.12.2006 to 10.1.2007 amounting to Rs. 561.20p with an impression that the above said bill relates to the Reliance Data-card used by the appellant with an HP laptop computer. Appellant again to utter surprise and shock received frivolous bill of Rs. 561.20 for the period 11.2.2007 to 10.3.2007 . Therefore he sought the following reliefs for the harassment and disturbance caused to him:-
(a) pass an award for sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the appellant and against the respondent towards the professional loss due to disturbances caused during the classes, seminars, works etc.
(b) Pass an award for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the appellant for harassment.
(c) Pass an award for a sum of rs. 25,000/- in favour of the appellant for mental agony.
(d) Pass an award for a sum of Rs. 1,001/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit.
(e) Cost of the complaint / forced litigation be also awarded in favour of the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that due to billing errors the billing amount was not adjusted and this resulted in the issuance of subsequent bills which were uncalled for. As regards the allegation that numerous calls were made to the appellant regarding non-payment, there was no allegation made to this effect in the letter dated 9th November, 2006 sent by the appellant to the respondent.
5. We have perused the complaint and find that appellant has specifically mentioned in respect of calls made regarding outstanding bill on his cellphone which caused mental tension and harassment to the appellant.
6. We have heard counsels for the both the parties and find that respondent was deficient in service by raising subsequent bills inspite of the fact that appellant requested disconnection and adjustment of outstanding bill from the security amount. Instances are not rare that banks as well finance companies keep on sending messages for outstanding dues inspite of the same having been cleared or not due. These private sector companies have employed some people who are contentiously engaged in these activities by threatening and abusing the consumers without bothering about the standing or status of a person. These persons behave like goons and street urchins, by sending calls for outstanding dues even when the bills are paid.
7. Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection act recognises the payment of compensation to a consumer as to the mental agony, harassment, emotional suffering and injuries suffered by him besides actual loss. On the concept of compensation in respect of these allegations, the Honble Supreme Court has given wide connotation and meaning to the word compensation and has held that consumer should be adequately compensated for vindicating the strength of law. The observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 are quote worthy and are as under :
The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/ Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law.
8. Proceeding on the aforesaid premise and the conduct of the respondent without looking into its own record and harassment of the appellant to such an extent that he was forced to file complaint before the District Forum and keeping in view the fact that litigation is becoming costly nowadays and forcing the consumer for legal course, the amount of compensation awarded by the District is on lower side, we allow the appeal and enhance the compensation to Rs. 10000/- which shall include the cost of litigation besides the refund of security amount if already not paid.
9. The appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
10. F.D.R./ Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
11. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on the 11th April, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member rk