State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharti Airtel vs Vijay Marwaha on 23 July, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 680 of 2007
Date of institution: 15.05.2007
Date of decision : 23.07.2012
M/s Bharti Airtel Limited having its Registered Office at H-5/12, Qutab
Ambience, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi and having its Circle Office, C-25,
Industrial Area, Phase-II, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) through its Senior
Executive (Legal).
.....Appellants
Versus
1. Vijay Marwaha aged 40 years son of Balbir Singh Marwaha resident
of Bharat Nagar, Marwaha Building, Ferozepur City, Tehsil and
District Ferozepur.
.....Respondent
2. Tuli Brothers, Air Tel Office, Adjoining Krishna Hotel, Inside Delhi
Gate, Ferozepur City through its Proprietor.
First Appeal against the order dated 02.11.2006
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member
Mr.Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate
For the respondents : Ex parte
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 2.11.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short the District Forum) vide which the complaint was allowed and the OPs were directed to restore the telephone and pay him Rs.25000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2000/- towards costs of litigation.
First Appeal No.680 of 2007 2
2. This appeal arises out of a complaint filed by Vijay Marwaha alleging that he had obtained a postpaid telephone connection from the OP- respondents; that on 26.8.2006, he received the bill of Rs.2600/- which was to be paid till 5.9.2006. He paid the bill amount on 29.8.2006 but even then the outgoing calls were disconnected by the OP on 29.8.2006 and the said facility was not restored. Thereafter, on 1.9.2006 and 2.9.2006, the complainant received telephonic messages that the bill amount has been adjusted in his account and his mobile connection would become operative within 2 hours but to no effect. The complainant is working as a Government Contractor and getting contracts of MES and BSF. His contention is that due to depriving him the facility of mobile phone, he has suffered a loss of Rs.30,000/-. He, therefore, prayed for a direction to the OP to restore the outgoing facility on his mobile connection and to pay Rs.30,000/- as loss in business, Rs.80,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as costs of the complaint.
3. OP No.1 filed the written reply admitting that the amount of Rs.2600/- was deposited by the complainant on 29.8.2006 but it was the function of OP No.2 and 3 to bar or not to bar the outgoing facility of the complainant.
4. The contention of OP No.2 and 3 appellant is that the complaint is false and frivolous and there is no deficiency in service on their part. It was admitted that the complainant was the subscriber to the said telephone number and a bill of Rs.2600/- was issued to him. It was admitted that the said amount was received in their account on 30.8.2006 but they had inadvertently posted the amount in some wrong account number. It was admitted that due to wrong posting, his outgoing call facility was barred. According to them, the outgoing call facility could not be restored as the First Appeal No.680 of 2007 3 subsequent bill amount remained unpaid by him. Other allegations were denied.
5. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 2.11.2006.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to try this complaint because it relates to non-payment of charges of the telephone connection, due to which, the outgoing facility was barred. This argument is devoid of merit. In fact, it is not a case of non-payment of bill nor is it a case of disconnection on that ground. OP No.2 and 3 in their written reply have admitted that the complainant had deposited the bill amount of Rs.2600/- before due date but it is their office who credited the said amount into a wrong account. The OPs have, therefore, admitted their deficiency in service in crediting of the bill amount in a wrong account and there is no dispute with respect to the telephone line or the apparatus. The dispute in the present case relates to crediting of the amount where the OP instead of posting the amount into the correct account has posted in a wrong account and barred the outgoing facility. We are, therefore, of the opinion that where the telephone service providers without any fault on the part of the consumers, harass them by resorting to illegal and unwarranted actions in disconnecting the telephone connection or barring their incoming or outgoing facility though the bill amount has already been paid, the dispute would be cognizable by the Consumer Fora. In the present case, the outgoing call facility was barred First Appeal No.680 of 2007 4 even when there was no fault of the subscriber and he had already paid the bill amount before the due date.
8. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned District Forum has imposed a compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with litigation costs of Rs.2000/- which are excessive and should be removed. We do not find any merit in this argument also. The contention of the complainant is that he is a Government Contractor and due to disconnection, he has suffered a loss of Rs.30,000/-. Apart from that, he claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony. The learned District Forum in its wisdom has granted him only Rs.25,000/- including the compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and his loss of business. The compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is, therefore, just and proper.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.
10. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.13,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 15.5.2007. This amount of Rs.13,500/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to Vijay Marwaha respondent complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
11. Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER July 23, 2012.
Paritosh