P.N.SHETTY vs Bharti Cellular Limited

SOME cases are being filed before the Forum/Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 even for ''fall of a hat''. The tendency of some consumers is to claim damages of lakhs of rupees even if they suffer loss of few hundreds of rupees under the guise of ''Deficiency in Service'', ''Negligence'', ''Damage to Reputation in Sociey'', etc. Added to this, some consumers who appear in person do not use polite words either in their pleadings or during arguments. SOME other consumers try to misuse the Forums merely because the statute provides for a nominal Court-fee. In some other cases even though the cost of goods or services might be less than Rs. 20,00,000, the consumers round-off their claim to Rs. 20,00,000 and file complaints directly before this Commission bypassing the District Forums, in order to avoid going to District Froum. The case on hand is one such case. The consumer in the instant case has claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for the alleged damage caused to his "Personal Standing" and Rs. 1,000 per day for a period during which his mobile telephone was disconnected, notwithstanding the fact that the mobile telephone facility was lawfully disconnected for non-payment of bill.

PARTIES in this Order are referred to according to their ranking in the complaint filed before the District Forum. The complainant has filed this appeal challenging the Order passed by the District Forum dismissing his complaint.

The facts in this case are follows : The complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the opposite parties (for short. "OPs") to refund the amount paid initially minus the amount vide Bill dated 18.11.2004; to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for the damage caused to the personal standing of the complainant; and to pay Rs. 1,000 per day for number of days of disconnection to his Mobile Phone effective from 20.1.2005. In the month of November, 2004, the complainant had purchased a SIM Card with MSISDN No. 9845473536 from M/s. Mainpal Agencies on paying an amount of Rs. 1,299 under the "Post Paid Plan". Thereafter, OP 1 sent a bill for the period from 11.11.2004 to 16.11.2004 to his permanent address at Yerlapady. The said bill was for an amount of Rs. 81.77. in the said bill an amount of Rs. 1,217.23 was shown as credit balance in his account with the OPs. According to the complainant, thereafter no bill was received by him either at his permanent address or his office address till the second part of December, 2004. But for non-payment of the amount due under the Bill, the Mobile Telephone connection was disconnected. Thereafter, when the complainant approached the agent of the OPs, the telephone connection to his Mobile was restored. It is further stated that the Agent informed the complainant that an amount of Rs. 500 was due from him. It is stated that the telephone connection to the Mobile was again disconnected on 20.7.2005 even before receiving any bill by the complainant. According to the complainant, he received the bill on 22.1.2005 at his office address for the period from 7.12.2004 to 10.1.2005 for an amount of Rs. 181.84 and immediately the said bill was paid by the complainant through a cheque. The due date for payment of the said bill was 27.1.2005 but the mobile telephone service of the complainant was disconnected from 20.1.2005 itself. Therefore, according to the complainant, there is a "Deficiency in Service" on the part of the OPs.

THE OPs filed their version before the District Forum stating that since the complainant had committed default in the payment of money due under the bill, they barred the outgoing calls of the complainant on 4.2.2005. Even after barring of the outgoing calls since the complainant did not clear the bill, the facility of mobile telephone connection provided to the complainant was suspended on 11.2.2005. THEreafter, the OPs again changed the billing circle and sent another bill to the complainant on 12.2.2005 for a sum of Rs. 199.58 till the date of the said bill together with the earlier bill and that the said bill remained unpaid. It is contended that even now the complainant owes to the OPs a sum of Rs. 724.64. Hence, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The District Forum after considering the rival contentions raised by the parties and on the basis of the evidence adduced before it has passed an Order dismissing the complaint. The Order of the District Forum is under challenge in this appeal.

THE only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the District Forum is justified in dismissing the complaint of the complainant ? It is not in dispute that the mobile telephone connection was provided to the complainant by the OPs under the ''post paid plan''. So far as the first bill for Rs. 81.77 raised by the OPs is concerned, the same was adjusted from the amount already paid and had indicated the credit balance as Rs. 1,217.23. According to the complainant, the second bill was not received by him. The case of the OPs is that the second bill was sent to the complainant at his permanent address as the complainant in his application form for mobile telephone connection had put a '' / '' mark in the column meant for billing address. The clause relating to "disconnection" in the terms and conditions stipulated in the bills reads thus: "Delay in payment of your bill/outstanding amount may lead to disconnection of your Airtel Services, in part or whole effective from the day falling immediately after due date. In case you do not receive the bill 15 days prior to due date please contact us at 121 from your Airtel or visit www.airtel.world.com. for a duplicate copy because we would be unable to accept ''Non-receipt'' of bills as a reason for non-payment"

. (Underlining by us) From a reading of the aforesaid clause it is clear that even in case the subscriber does not receive bill for 15 days prior to due date he is required to contact the OPs at 121 from his Airtel or visit www.airtel.world.com. for a duplicate copy of the bill. In the instant case, it is not the case of the complainant that he was not aware of the due date and he has contacted the OPs for a doplicate copy of the bill. Therefore, even assuming that the complainant has not received the bill sent by the OPs, his duty was to contact the OPs as stated above and obtain a duplicate copy of the bill and thereafter clear the said bill in order to avoid any disconnection. Therefore, non-receipt of the bill said to have been sent by the OPs cannot be a ground for the complainant to contend that there is a "Deficiency in Service" on the part of the OPs, as he had not taken any steps to know what was the amount to be paid by him." The complainant does not dispute the receipt of the bill dated 12.1.2005 sent by the OPs to his official address, since the complainant himself has furnished his office address to the agent of the company for sending the bills. The case of the complainant is that even though the last date for payment was 27.1.2005 as indicated in the bill, the OPs disconnected the telephone facility to his mobile on 20.1.2005 itself. But the OPs deny the said disconnection by contending that they have barred the outgoing calls with effect from 4.2.2005 and subsequently suspended the mobile telephone facility with effect from 11.2.2005 for non-payment of the bill. Assuming that the OPs have disconnected the mobile telephone connection facility with effect from 20.1.2005 can it be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPS. We looked into the bill dated 12.1.2005, for the period from 17.12.2004 to 10.1.2005 for Rs. 181.84. No doubt in the said bill the due date for payment was mentioned as 27.1.2005. In the very bill it was stated as follows: "Since your account is currently overdue, the due date is not applicable. Please pay immediately." From the said bill it is also seen that the current month''s bill was Rs. 181.84 and the balance was Rs. 525.06. It appears the complainant had not paid the previous balance. From the note extracted above it is clear that even though the due date in the bill was mentioned as 27.1.2005, the same is not applicable since the complainant''s account was currently overdue. Therefore, as per the terms of the contract assuming that the OPs have disconnected the mobile telephone facility, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service as the disconnection of the facility was in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed to between the parties. Therefore, in our view, the District Forum has not committed any illegality in dismissing the complaint.

THE complainant has filed his written submissions at the time of arguments. In the said submissions dated 5.6.2006, the complainant, inter alia, has stated thus: "THE respondents appear to think that with the feudalistic laws that the country has, in a more corrupt State like Karnataka they could escape liability for their misdeeds which they would not have been able to do in some other States of the country." "In unduly influencing the District Forum at Udupi, the respondents have caused me additional harass-ment and costs......"

THE complainant being a Professor in a University ought not to have made such allegations without any basis. Further, the language used by him both in the Appeal Memo and the written submissions is intemperate. hence, the appeal is to be dismissed with costs.

IN the result, we pass the following Order: The appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand only) payable by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 within two months from today. Appeal dismissed