Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member:
1. This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as District Forum-II] dated 1.4.2004 in Complaint Case No. 859 of 2002, Sh. Ashok Pathania v. HFCL Infotel Limited.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant, an Advocate, obtained a connect-mobile connection from the O.P. for consideration and the number of the telephone was 894423. In July, 2002 the complainant received a bill for Rs. 607/- from the O.P. The bill was for the month of June 2002 and the same was paid vide Cheque No. 307957, dated 23rd July, 2002 i.e., by the due date. The cheque was dropped in a collection box meant for this purpose in SCO No. 423-24, 1st Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. The amount of the cheque was credited in the account of the O.P. on 2.8.2002. In spite of having received the payment, the O.P. without any notice locked the outside calls from the mobile phone of the complainant on 4.8.2002. Further w.e.f. 7.8.2002 outside telephone calls from the mobile were suspended and typed message started coming indicating that the facility had been withdrawn for non-payment of bill. On 7th and 8th August the complainant contacted the O.P. on inquiry No. 1920 and intimated the cheque number and date and amount that had already been paid and credited to the account of O.P. on 2.8.2002. The official at the Telephone Inquiry of the O.P. promised early action after checking. Further on 8th and 9th August, 2002 Ms. Kannu Pathania, daughter of the complainant personally visited the Branch Office of O.P. at Sector 35-C and gave all the details to one Sh. Suresh, working in the accounts division of the O.P. who assured her that the facility withdrawn would be restored by the afternoon of 9th August. But nothing was done on 9th August and in response to a call at Telephone No. 1920 one Ms. Gurvinder Kaur, an official of the O.P., informed the complainant that due bill had not been received. On 10.8.2002 Ms. Kannu Pathania again visited the Sector 35-C Office of the O.P. along with the Bank Pass Book and showed the debit entry to the official of the O.P. who assured early restoration after checking with accounts division. On 13th August the complainant received the bill for the month of July in which Rs. 607/- had been shown as outstanding. The facility of the mobile phone stood withdrawn even after recording of Complaint No. 600178 of 9.8.2002. As the facility qua outside calls remained withdrawn on 16th August Ms. Kannu Pathania again visited Sector 35-C office of the O.P. and met Mr. Suresh of accounts division and showed him bank certificate issued by the Bankers of the complainant whereupon Mr. Suresh assured her that the accounts division had intimated the technical division to restore withdrawn facility forthwith. However, instead of restoring the facility the O.P. completely disconnected the telephone and it is remained so almost the entire of August 2002 till filing of the complaint. The complainant has also averred that even earlier the complainant did not receive the bill in June 2002 and the O.P. without any notice disconnected the outside call facility w.e.f. 7.6.2002. The complainant on 12.6.2002 visited the office of the O.P. in Sector 35-C and on getting the bill, deposited Rs. 1,550/- immediately on the spot yet the O.P. restored the phone only on 20.6.2002.
In the complaint the complainant has sought following reliefs:
(a)Â Payment of Rs. 7,000/- for withdrawing outside call facility from 7th June to 20th June i.e., 14 days @ Rs. 500/- per day.
(b)Â Payment of Rs. 11,000/- for withdrawing outside call facility from 4th August, 2002 to 26th August, 2002 i.e., 23 day @ Rs. 500/- per day.
(c) Payment of Rs. 3 lacs compensation for mental harassment and adverse effect on reputation and prestige.
(d)Â Payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
(e)Â Payment of interest @ 18% per annum from date of complaint till payment.
3. The O.P. in its version has stated that the complainant while paying the cheque for Rs. 607/- dated 2.8.2002 did not mention the mobile number on the cheque. Because of this the amount could not be credited to the account of the complainant and was kept in suspense account. As regards outgoing calls in June 2002 is concerned, the O.P. states that the bill of Rs. 2,307/- including Rs. 1,547/- as arrears were due from the complainant but the complainant deposited only Rs. 1,550/- on 12.6.2002 and did not deposit balance of Rs. 757/-, therefore, outgoing calls were barred on 17.6.2002 and on deposit of Rs. 757/- on 27.6.2002 the facility was restored.
4. In their analysis of the case learned District Forum-II dealt first with the issue of withdrawal of facility in June 2002 and it observed that the complainant has not filed any counter denying or controverting the case of the O.P. so it was held that the version of the O.P. is well founded and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. on this count.
5. Coming next to the issue of denial of facility in August, the learned District Forum-II has observed that since the complainant has not filed any affidavit saying that on the cheque issued by him he had mentioned his telephone number, the version of the O.P. must be accepted. It further observed that the complainant started contacting the O.P. only on 7.8.2002 but in the meanwhile another bill for the period 7.7.2002 to 6.8.2002 dated 7.8.2002 had been issued in which Rs. 607/- were shown as arrears and the total bill was for Rs. 1,334/- and this bill was paid vide a cheque dated 27.8.2002 which was encashed through clearance on 31.8.2002. However, it was on 7.8.2002 and subsequently that the O.P. was given the particulars of the cheque of Rs. 607/- through phone, or through his daughter Ms. Kannu Pathania and even though Sh. Suresh admitted that the amount had been credited in their account book yet the O.P. did not restore the connection of the complainant even though no other amount was due from the complainant at that time. The learned District Forum-II, therefore, held that the O.P. had committed deficiency in service and they further committed deficiency in service by recovering the amount of Rs. 607/- from the complainant once over again. It held the deficiency in service of being of a grave and serious nature, as the O.P. had not restored the facility till the date of the impugned order. Consequently, the learned District Forum -II directed the O.P. to pay the complainant Rs. 10,000/- @ Rs. 500/- per day for denying the mobile telephone facility for 20 days i.e., from 7.8.2002 till 26.8.2002. The learned District Forum held that the claim of Rs. 3 lacs as compensation was highly exaggerated and further directed that the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- aforesaid will also include compensation for mental and physical harassment as well as professional loss. The learned District Forum also directed the O.P. to refund Rs. 607/- recovered from the complainant once over again and also directed the O.P. to take back the mobile telephone handset and refund 50% of its price to the complainant and also directing the O.P. to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation. It also directed the O.P. to permanently close the mobile telephone connection/account of the complainant.
6. Aggrieved by this order the O.P. has filed this appeal. The appeal was taken on board. The record of the complaint case was summoned from District Forum-II and notice was sent to the respondent. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant whereas Mr. Dinesh Malhotra, Advocate represented the respondent.
7. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate submitted that since the respondent/complainant did not mention the telephone number on the cheque the amount of the cheque could not be credited to the account of the complainant/respondent and the moment the entry was traced the amount was credited to his account. He further submitted that the learned District Forum had also directed payment of 50% of the cost of the mobile phone, which is beyond the pleadings. He finally submitted that only outgoing calls were barred from 8.8.2002 till 22.8.2002 and the connection was disconnected w.e.f. 22.8.2002 till 26.8.2002 but the learned District Forum has order compensation at the same rate i.e., Rs. 500/- per day.
8. Mr. Dinesh Malhotra, Advocate submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the cheque did not bear the mobile telephone number of the complainant. He further added that a false impression was being given to the Court and it is on record that the complainant and his daughter had been contacting the O.P. on telephone and in person and gave them all the details on many occasions.
9. The respondent/complainant has mainly brought out two time periods of deficiency in service i.e., 7th June, 2002 to 20th June, 2002 and 4th August, 2002 to 26th August, 2002.
10. As regards alleged deficiency relating to the time period of 7th June, 2002 to 20th June, 2002 is concerned, the complainant has failed to bring anything on record to indicate that a bill for Rs. 2,307/- was not due from him and that he only paid Rs. 1,550/- on 12.6.2002 and paid the remaining amount of Rs. 757/- only on 27.6.2002. In this case the complainant has no surviving case of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. We are, therefore, in total agreement with the findings of the learned District Forum that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as regards denial of facility to the complainant from 7th June, 2002 till 20th June, 2002.
11. Coming next to the denial of mobile telephone facility to the respondent/complainant w.e.f. 4.8.2002, the complainant has nothing on record to prove that the outgoing calls were barred from 4.8.2002 however; admitted position is that the outgoing calls were barred w.e.f. 7.8.2002 and this also is the time period when the complainant and his daughter started approaching the O.P./appellant on telephone and in person. Para 4 of the affidavit of Sh. Brij Mathur, Vice-President. HFCL Infotel Limited, is clear that the complainant/respondent insisted that the payment of Rs. 607/- had been made vide Cheque No. 307957, dated 2.8.2002 and it does not deny the version of the respondent/complainant that he and his daughter made repeated contacts on telephone and in person from 7.8.2002 onwards. Also there is no denial of Ms. Kannu Pathanias meeting with Mr. Suresh, an official in the accounts department of the O.P. and Mr. Suresh accepting the receipt of the cheque for Rs. 607/-. Though there is nothing on record that the cheque aforesaid for Rs. 607/- did not carry the mobile telephone number on it there is also nothing on record that it did carry the telephone number, but as it may once the complainant had given full details of the cheque to the O.P. as early as 7.8.2002 it definitely should not have taken the appellant/O.P. till 26th August, 2002 to reconnect the mobile telephone connection. In our considered view it is clearly a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/O.P. to deny the complainant mobile telephone facility w.e.f. 7.8.2002 till 26th August, 2002. In view of the foregoing, we uphold the view of the learned District Forum on this issue. We also find that the compensation awarded on this count, keeping in view that the respondent/complainant is a practising Advocate, as being just and fair.
12. Discussing the award of grant of 50% of the price of the mobile handset to the complainant on its receipt by the O.P. we find that the respondent/complainant had in the complaint prayed for disconnection of the mobile telephone connection as well as refund of full price of the mobile handset on its return to Appellant/OP. In this view of the matter the direction of the learned District Forum to the O.P. to receive back the mobile handset and pay 50% of the cost to the respondent/complainant is just, fair and legal.
13. From the foregoing, it is clear that the learned District Forum has not erred on any count in the impugned order which is thus fair, just and legal, warranting no interference. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being void of merit and the impugned order is upheld. Parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.
14. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges.