State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharti Airtel Limited vs Kishori Mohan Jha & Others on 3 December, 2007
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI FA no. 645 of 2007 Bharti Airtel Limited . Appellant Vs. Kishori Mohan Jha & others . Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent no.1 : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Advocate For Respondent no.2 : None For Respondent no.3 : Mr. P.K.Choudhry, Advocate Present: Justice Gurusharan Sharma- President And Mrs. Kalyani Kar Roy- Member
Judgment Justice Sharma:
This appeal is directed against Order dated 14.02.2007, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Godda, in Consumer Complaint no. 70 of 2006, whereby the appellant was directed to pay a fine of Rs.50,000.00 and to deposit 50% thereof in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund under State Consumer Commission and the rest amount to be paid to the Complaint- respondent by way of compensation and litigation cost.
2. The appeal is barred by time. The appellant has filed a petition under Rule 8(4) of the State Rules and a supplementary affidavit thereto for condonation of the delay. According to the office report limitation expired on 16.3.2007, whereas the appeal was filed on 28.5.2007. It is stated that true copy of order was supplied on 19.3.2007 and the appellant received the same on 10.4.2007. Thereafter some time was consumed in obtaining necessary opinion/permission to file appeal and some delay was caused in preparation of Demand Draft for the statutory amount, which was done on 26.5.2007, although necessary instruction and Vakalatnama for filing the appeal was already given to the Advocate concerned on 12.5.2007 itself.
3. The complainant-respondent no.1 is subscriber of Bharti Airtel mobile phone no.9931334766. He purchased recharge coupon on 18.7.2006 for Rs.330.00 from respondent no.3. After recharging said coupon, mobile phone showed balance amount of Rs.230.35 paise but thereafter on 21.7.2006, balance amount was shown nil and outgoing calls stopped. However, incoming calls continued to be received. In order to ascertain the problem, subscriber again recharged the mobile phone with a new voucher of Rs.20.00, still balance was shown as nil and there was no improvement. The subscriber complained to the appellant and then defect in the mobile phone was rectified.
4. The subscriber filed Consumer Complaint no.70 of 2006 before the District Consumer Forum, Godda against M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. contested the complaint inter-alia, on the ground that there was neither any intention behind obstruction in outgoing calls on 21.7.2006 and 22.7.2006 nor mobile phone was off. Incoming calls continued to be received. On checking it was detected that actually it happened due to mechanical defect, which was corrected without any delay on receiving complain from the subscriber.
6. The District Consumer Forum disposed the complaint with the aforesaid directions mentioned in the paragraph 1 above.
7. According to complainant, inspite of recharging the mobile phone by fresh coupon, it showed zero balance and outgoing calls stopped. Hence the complainant could not talk to his relatives for two days (21.7.06 and 22.7.06).
8. It is not in dispute that when the complainant approached the appellant- M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. and complained about it, the defect was immediately rectified and from 23.7.06 balance amount was correctly shown in the mobile phone and he was able to make outgoing calls.
9. M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. on checking found that such inconvenience was caused to the complainant on account of mechanical fault, which was corrected without any delay.
10. In our view, for such mechanical fault/defect which was immediately located and rectified, the service provider can not be said to be deficient in service.
11. The complainant did not suffer inconvenience for two days, in not making outgoing calls from his mobile phone on account of any intentional or negligent act of the service provider. It happened on account of mechanical fault.
12. We fail to understand as to on what basis the District Consumer Forum, Godda assessed compensation amount at Rs.50,000.00 for the complainants suffering aforesaid and out of that asked the appellant to pay 50% to the Consumer Legal Aid Fund under the State Commission. There is no such provision either under the 1986 Act or the Rules or the Regulations framed thereunder. Even if deficiency of service was established compensation amount has to be calculated and quantified on a rationale basis on consideration of documentary and/or oral evidence produced showing the extent of loss suffered by Consumer/Complainant for the negligence of the service provider. The District Forum should be careful in future in assessing the amount of compensation properly and in accordance with the norms. Compensation amount also can not be directed to be deposited in Consumer Legal Fund, if any.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no option but to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. In the result the complaint fails and is dismissed. No costs.
The 3rd December, 2007 Ranchi Member President