TATA TELE SERVICES LIMITED Vs. SAMEER NANDWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON account of havng raised a bill after the respondent had surrendered the telephone connection and over and above hiring services of private recovery agent who extended threats on telephone every now and then and threats of facing dire consequences if the dues were not cleared, the appellant has been held guilty by the District Forum for deficiency in service and causing mental agony and harassment and vide impugned order dated 31.1.2007 directed to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 10,000 as cost of litigation to the respondent who is a practising advocate himself.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the respondent No. 1 who is a practising Advocate was motivated by respondent No. 2 who is agent of the appellant to go in for CDMA technology which was better than other technologies available and accordingly the respondent opted for a plan in terms of which he was to pay Rs. 1,000 as initial deposit and the handset was to be given to him there and then and further amount of Rs. 199 per month was payable by the respondent for a period of two years as instalments of the handset besides a sum of Rs. 200 as rent and call charges @ 50 paise per minute. Since the day of handing over the handset it never functioned properly and always had connectivity problems. Battery of the set was also malfunctioning. Apart from this billing was also not in order as the respondent used to get excessive bills In spite of complaints made to the appellant in respect of the above problems no heed was given to such complaints and the respondent kept on paying the due amounts under protest to avoid disconnection of the phone. The respondent was informed by the appellant that since there was some policy change in the appellant company the plan of the respondent was being transferred to Rs. 999 plan from the Rs. 1,000 plan. So as to get rid of the problems being faced at the hands of the appellant the respondent decided to cancel the mobile connection but was shocked to know from the appellant's customer care centre that for closing the connection he would have to pay Rs. 2,000 to the appellant. Since the respondent did not pay the inflated bills due to his genuine grievances which were not sorted out by the respondent, his mobile telephone number 56207665 which was changed to 9212007665 was made onesided and outgoing calls were stopped but on 16.9.2004 all of a sudden outgoing calls were allowed without any request by the respondent with mala fide intention to recover the minimum bill of Rs. 999 per month from the respondent. Since the respondent refused to pay the bills raised illegally by the appellant the appellant company started threatening the respondent and the respondent started getting threatening calls from people claiming to be Advocates and recovery agents of the appellant company. The respondent also filed police complaints regarding the said threatening calls received by him. According to the respondent No. 1 the appellant company failed to provide services as promised and on the other hand caused undue harassment, mental torture, loss of business, etc. for which he has claimed a compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh along with interest @ 18% and Rs. 11,000 as cost of litigation.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, the District Forum observed that "the complainant himself was the best judge as to what price plan he would opt for and the suo motu change of price plan by the O.P. without the consent of the complainant, in our considered opinion, was not only unjustified but amounted to unfair trade practices. By virtue of the said change of price plan the complainant was made to make minimum payment of Rs. 999 per month irrespective of the fact whether he may make one call or ten calls in a month. In these circumstances when the plan was being changed with new price plan and when the complainant was facing connectivity problems and when he sought to surrender his handset, the complainant was directed to pay Rs. 2,000 as exist fee whereas this fact was not brought to his knowledge at the initial stage when the complainant had purchased the handset from the O.P. Said acts on the part of the O.P. not only amounts to deficiency in service on their part but also amounts to practising unfair trade practices by forcing the complainant to continue with the connection until and unless a fine of Rs. 2,000 in the shape of exit fee was paid by him. Moroever, raising bills by the O.P. after the complainant had surrendered the telephone connection was quite illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and the complainant was not bound to make the payment of the same."