RAJENDER SINGH BAJWA Vs. ASHISH KAUSHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 26.8.2010 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, partly allowing the consumer complaint No. 78 of 2007 and directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 2,444 along with litigation expenses of Rs. 500.

(2.) THE consumer complaint filed by Sh. Rajender Singh Bajwa before the District Forum pertains to deficiency in service made by the opposite parties in respect of an Airtel connection given to the complainant on 20.4.2005. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 2,444 in advance under a special tariff plan in which he was entitled for free calls upto Rs. 150 per month for a period of one year. This amount was paid by the complainant on 14.4.2005 through a cheque. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties did not inform him regarding the activation of the SIM. It was only when he switched on his mobile on 20.4.2005 that he could know that the SIM had been activated. However, instead of the mobile number he had requested for, he was allotted a different mobile number. It is also alleged that the outgoing calls were barred and that in contrary to the terms and conditions of the tariff plan he had opted and inspite of depositing sum of Rs. 2,444 in advance under the said plan, the opposite parties issued a bill dated 21.4.2005 for sum of Rs. 2,493. The bill did not show that an amount of Rs. 2,444 was deposited by the complainant in advance. When the opposite parties did not respond to the enquiries and requests made by the complainant in this regard, the complainant filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint in the above terms. However, the complainant felt that he has not been compensated for the mental agony he had suffered, hence he filed this appeal.

(3.) WE have heard the appellant -complainant in person and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In its order dated 20.4.2011, this Commission has observed that the main contest is between the appellant and the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, we are proceeding to decide this appeal in spite of the fact that the notices sent to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not be delivered by the postal department and returned the envelopes with the remark that their addresses have changed.