RELIANCE TELECOM LIMITED vs KUSHAL JAIN

THESE two appeals (Nos. 192/2004 and 329/2004) arise out of the order dated 30.12.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore in Case No. 362/2002 directing opposite party, the Reliance Telecom Limited (for short the "RTL") to pay to the complainant-Kushal Jain compensation of Rs. 3,000/-, besides cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

THE complainant got his mobile service activated on 25.5.2000 from the RTL under a tariff plan of ''Call-in-free 3000'' and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as security deposit. THE present dispute relates to bill dated 6.10.2001 raised by RTL for the period 7.9.2001 to 6.10.2001 for a sum of Rs. 1,950.92. THE pay-by-date indicated in the bill was 19.10.2001. However, it was noted on the bill that pay-by-date is not applicable in case billed plus unbilled amount exceeded 75% of the security deposit. It appears that in the instant case the billed as also the unbilled amount exceeded 75% of the security deposit and as such firstly his outgoing facility was discontinued on 11.10.2001, then his incoming facility was barred on 15.10.2001 and finally his services were terminated on 18.10.2001, even though the entire amount of the bill was paid by the complainant on or before the pay-by-date of the bill. THE complainant approached the Forum below complaining deficiency in service on the part of the RTL and claimed compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/- towards loss in business, harassment and mental agony. THE Forum below after inquiry allowed the complaint in part awarding compensation as aforesaid. Rtl by its appeal (No. 192/2004) seeks quashment of the order while the complainant has filed appeal (No. 329/2004) praying for argumentation of the amount of compensation.

We have heard learned Counsels for both the parties and we are of the considered view that both the appeals should fail.

TAKING the appeal (No. 192/2004) of the RTL first, obviously the mobile services of the complainant has been terminated by the RTL even before the expiry of the pay-by-date indicate in the bill only on the ground that the billed as also the unbilled amount had exceeded 75% of the security amount. According to the RTL this was done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties. The term relating to termination and as extracted by the RTL in their memo of appeal thus reads as follows : "7. TERMINATION (A) Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove, RTL shall be entitled to terminate the services to be provided herein if- (i) ...... (ii) At any time the customer fails to satisfy the requisite credit checks or provides fraudulent information to RTL pursuant to which services have been provided. (iii) The customer fails to pay charges."

Nowhere in this term it is mentioned that the complainant-consumer was required to take care of the financial exposure limit so that the billed plus unbilled amount of any given period does not exceed 75% of the security deposit. The complainant has also placed on record copy of the Tariff Plan Enrolment Plan (Ex. P/2) containing the entire terms and conditions of the mobile service hired by him from the opposite party. We are unable to lay our hand on any such term or condition nor the Counsel for the opposite party was able to point out one, which authorized the opposite party to unilaterally terminate the service merely because the amount in question exceeded 75% of the security deposit. It is significant to note that the billed as well as the unbilled amount in this case was lesser than the amount of security deposit (i.e., Rs. 2,500/-). True, the opposite party-company while providing service to its consumers is entitled to take steps to secure its payment and may enforce the credit checks but before imposing any such condition the consumer has to be informed beforehand about the steps which may be taken by the Company in enforcing any such checks. In fact, right to such information is the gist of our consumer laws and any violation thereof would amount to deficiency in service. In the instant case as already pointed out no such condition was prescribed in the contract while providing service to the consumer. There was also no possibility of the RTL suffering any financial loss inasmuch as the billed as well as the unbilled amount did not exceed the security deposit in the hands of the company. The termination of service was wholly unwarranted and the company was clearly deficient in its service. Its appeal has no force and deserves dismissal.

COMING to the appeal of complainant (No. 329/2004) there is no evidence of (sic) loss suffered by the complainant in his business on account of termination of his mobile service by the opposite party. The Forum below has awarded general damages Rs. 3,000/- which in the facts and circumstances of the case appear to be just and proper. His appeal must also, therefore, fail. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed but with no order as to costs. This order be retained in Appeal No. 192/2004 and a copy be placed in Appeal No. 329/2004. Ordered accordingly.