SUMAN KUMAR GUPTA vs ATUL M MARU

-THIS appeal is directed against order dated 16. 1. 2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Lohardaga, in Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2006, whereby the appellant, who was impleaded as opposite party No. 1 in the complaint has been directed to take back the mobile phone and refund the amount of Rs. 5,499. 00, after deducting current charges for the month of December, 2005, amounting to Rs. 567. 03 and to pay a compensation including cost of litigation of Rs. 10,000. 00 to the complainant-respondent.

ACCORDING to the office report, limitation for filing appeal from the date of impugned order expired on 15. 2. 2008, wehreas it was filed on 7. 3. 2008. It is apparent from the last page of the true copy of the impugned order that the same was issued on 30. 1. 2008. It is stated in the petition filed for condonation of delay along with the memorandum of appeal that after receiving the copy of order under appeal some time was consumed in completing official formalities and unfortunately Senior Manager, Legal of Tata Teleservices Ltd. was out of station on official duty, hence six days delay was caused in filing the appeal from the date of receipt of order. These statements are uncontroverted. Hence, delay is condoned. Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2006 was filed against the appellant as well as the respondent No. 2, M/s. Pasa Sales and Marketing (Tata Indicom Dealer), Ranchi alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

On 22. 10. 2005 the complainant purchased one Tata Indicom Mobile (Post-paid ). He paid Rs. 5,499. 00 by cheque in favour of Pasa Sales and Marketing made further payment of bill dated 27. 10. 2005 (due date 3. 11. 2005) for Rs. 1252. 00 on 9. 11. 2005 by cheque and another bill dated 27. 11. 2005 (due date 14. 12. 2007) for Rs. 423. 00 vide receipt No. 0471 date 8. 12. 2005. However, on 15/16th December, 2007 his ongoing calls were barred, but on showing payments of bills already made, same day the facility was restored. Again after 9-10 days in December 2005 itself, outgoing calls were again barred, but on making complaint to Customer Care Phone No. 121 action was immediately taken and facility was restored within three hours.

IN the next bill dated 27. 12. 2005 for Rs. 990. 00, on outstanding dues of Rs. 423. 00 of the previous bill was wrongly shown and direction was given in the said bill for immediate payment. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the complainant approached the authority concerned immediately after receiving bill dated 27. 12. 2005 and produced proof of payment of Rs. 423. 00, amount of earlier bill dated 27. 11. 2005 within due date. Normally in monthly bills date is shown as due date for payment, but in the bill dated 27. 12. 2005, since arrear of previous bill was also included, instead of mentioning a due date for payment, direction was given for immediate payment. However, such direction obviously was subject to pointing out the mistake that the arrear shown was already paid in time and, therefore, was wrongly shown. In our view, this was required to be done by the complainant immediately. The post-paid mobile telephone of the complainant was disconnected on 5. 1. 2006 for the reason that neither any proof was shown for payment of the previous bill, which was mentioned as arrear nor the bill dated 27. 11. 2005 was paid immediately. The complainant in our view, got sufficient time to raise objection, if any, to the bill in question (dated 27. 12. 2005) and his mobile telephone was disconnected after about ten days. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of M/s. Tata Teleservices Ltd.

IN our view, even if there was deficiency in service on the part of the service provider in the present case, there was no occasion for the District Forum to direct return of the mobile set and refund the price paid for it rather the complainant was only to be compensated for the said deficiency. We affirm the finding of the District Forum that after deducting Rs. 430. 00 (already paid) from the bill amount of Rs. 990. 00 the current bill for Rs. 561. 00 was payable by the complainant-respondent. We have, therefore, no option but to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

IN the result, this appeal is allowed and the complaint stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.