DEBU KR GHOSH Vs. USHA MARTIN TELECOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has approached the Commission claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

(2.) The complainant was provided with a Cellular Phone Connection at his address at 5/1a, Kirti Mitra Lane, Calcutta-4 on 1.1.1999 on payment of Rs.2,398/- in a Magnum Scheme by opposite party 2 who is a dealer of opposite party 1. It has been alleged that the same was disconnected abruptly on 12.1.1999 at 10.00 p. m. causing serious loss and injury to him. On enquiry, the complainant came to learn that due to non-availability of the complainant at his residence, the same has been disconnected but till date the opposite parties did not care to make refund of the consideration money. It has been stated that the ground taken by the opposite party regarding his non-availability at his residence is not correct. He had given a letter to opposite party 2 stating that his mother stays at the aforesaid address and was authorised to receive all correspondence on his behalf during his absence. The petitioner claims that the service connection having been withdrawn, he was cut off from outside world causing irreparable loss and injury.

(3.) The case is contested by opposite party 1 by filing a written version wherein it has been admitted that the complainant was provided with a Cellular Connection on 30.12.1998. At the time of providing such connection the complainant requested opposite party 1 to despatch all future correspondences at his address at 5/1a, Kirti Mitra Lane, Calcutta. Accordingly, the opposite party 1 despatched through Courier Service a letter acknowledging receipt of sum of Rs.2,398/- but the same remained undelivered and it was returned to them with the remark "shifted". It has been stated that the complainant did not intimate the change of his address and the service was disconnected on 12.1.1999 on the apprehension of impersonation. Later, the complainant told opposite party 1 that he has shifted to Prafulla Kanan, Kestopur East at Baguihati and further informed that his mother was staying at the earlier address and she was authorised to receive all correspondences on his behalf. Opposite party 1 re-despatched the money receipt thrice but all the time it remained undelivered as no one was available at the said address. According to the opposite parties they have suffered huge loss because of misrepresentation made by many of its subscribers and furnishing of false address. Therefore, in order to avoid such a situation they have disconnected the service on 12.1.1999. It appears that the complainant was a resident of 5/1a, Kirti Mitra Lane, Calcutta-4. He has shifted his residence to Prafulla Kanan at Baguihati. The complainant says that his mother stayed back at the earlier address and was authorised to receive all correspondences on his behalf. The case of the opposite party is that in order to avoid any possible misrepresentation they sent the money receipt to the address given by the subscriber at the time of purchase. It may be mentioned that the address of the complainant was at 5/1a, Kirti Mitra Lane, Calcutta -4 when the service connection was obtained. The opposite party asserts that on several occasions they have despatched the money receipt to the address of the complainant at the earlier address through Courier. But all the time the said receipt could not be delivered because there was none to receive it. According to the opposite party as a matter of policy they have decided that until the receipt is acknowledged by the subscriber they do not restore connection so as to safeguard against any possible misrepresentation by any of the unscrupulous subscribers. After having considered the respective cases of the parties we think that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. They have despatched the money receipt not only once but thrice to avoid any possible misrepresentation. Therefore, we are not inclined to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party would reconnect the service after the complainant acknowledges receipt of the money receipt said to have been despatched by the opposite party to the complainant. The complainant is directed to approach the opposite party and to furnish them with his present address. The opposite party would despatch the money receipt to his new address within 2-weeks from this date and upon acknowledgement of the money receipt the service connection would be restored by the opposite parties within 72 hours thereof. With this observation, the case be disposed of.