AITEL BHARAT MOBINET LTD Vs. K.N.SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Forum, upon a complaint, by the consumer, slapped an order, directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25000/-, as compensation, with cost of Rs.5000/-, as per order dt.17.11.2008, which is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The complainant was having Airtel postpaid connection Mobile No.98400 88222, for his official use, for which he was paying charges regularly. For the bill dt.3.3.2003, for Rs.5740.49/-, including the previous balance of Rs.2722.98/-, though the complainant paid the amount, not properly accounted, whereas the said amount has been misappropriated, by the authorized agent, thereby the opposite parties have committed negligent act, since they have also failed to give proper reply, for the notice, thereby committed deficiency. Thus alleging, claiming a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation, for unfair trade practice, and another sum of Rs.25000/- for deficiency in service, and another sum of Rs.50000/- for mental agony, a complaint came to be filed.

(3.) The opposite party/ appellant, admitting the mobile connection, opposed the complaint, interalia on the grounds, among other grounds, that the complainant was customarily delayed, or defaulted in making payments, for the bills, and in view of the same, the computer system of the opposite party, automatically debarred out going calls, for the customer, after a specified date, which cannot be termed as deficiency in service, that the complainant has been consistently making late payments, exceeding his credit limit, and at any point of time, the opposite party has not committed any deficiency, and there was no need to restore the service, on 8.4.2003, as the service was never barred at all, and that since the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service, regarding the issuance of the bill, they are not liable to pay any compensation.