HFCL INFOTEL LIMITED Vs. ASHOK PATHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as District Forum-II] dated 1.4.2004 in Complaint Case No.859 of 2002, Sh. Ashok Pathania V/s. HFCL Infotel Limited.

(2.) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant, an Advocate, obtained a connect-mobile connection from the O. P. for consideration and the number of the telephone was 894423. In July, 2002 the complainant received a bill for Rs.607/- from the O. P. The bill was for the month of June 2002 and the same was paid vide Cheque No.307957, dated 23rd July, 2002 i. e. , by the due date. The cheque was dropped in a collection box meant for this purpose in SCO No.423-24, 1st Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. The amount of the cheque was credited in the account of the O. P. on 2.8.2002. In spite of having received the payment, the O. P. without any notice locked the outside calls from the mobile phone of the complainant on 4.8.2002. Further w. e. f.7.8.2002 outside telephone calls from the mobile were suspended and typed message started coming indicating that the facility had been withdrawn for non-payment of bill. On 7th and 8th August the complainant contacted the O. P. on inquiry No.1920 and intimated the cheque number and date and amount that had already been paid and credited to the account of O. P. on 2.8.2002. The official at the Telephone Inquiry of the O. P. promised early action after checking. Further on 8th and 9th August, 2002 Ms. Kannu Pathania, daughter of the complainant personally visited the Branch Office of O. P. at Sector 35-C and gave all the details to one Sh. Suresh, working in the accounts division of the O. P. who assured her that the facility withdrawn would be restored by the afternoon of 9th August. But nothing was done on 9th August and in response to a call at Telephone No.1920 one Ms. Gurvinder Kaur, an official of the O. P. , informed the complainant that due bill had not been received. On 10.8.2002 Ms. Kannu Pathania again visited the Sector 35-C Office of the O. P. along with the Bank Pass Book and showed the debit entry to the official of the O. P. who assured early restoration after checking with accounts division. On 13th August the complainant received the bill for the month of July in which Rs.607/- had been shown as outstanding. The facility of the mobile phone stood withdrawn even after recording of Complaint No.600178 of 9.8.2002. As the facility qua outside calls remained withdrawn on 16th August Ms. Kannu Pathania again visited Sector 35-C office of the O. P. and met Mr. Suresh of accounts division and showed him bank certificate issued by the Bankers of the complainant whereupon Mr. Suresh assured her that the accounts division had intimated the technical division to restore withdrawn facility forthwith. However, instead of restoring the facility the O. P. completely disconnected the telephone and it is remained so almost the entire of August 2002 till filing of the complaint. The complainant has also averred that even earlier the complainant did not receive the bill in June 2002 and the O. P. without any notice disconnected the outside call facility w. e. f.7.6.2002. The complainant on 12.6.2002 visited the office of the O. P. in Sector 35-C and on getting the bill, deposited Rs.1,550/- immediately on the spot yet the O. P. restored the phone only on 20.6.2002. In the complaint the complainant has sought following reliefs: (a) Payment of Rs.7,000/- for withdrawing outside call facility from 7th June to 20th June i. e. , 14 days @ Rs.500/- per day. (b) Payment of Rs.11,000/- for withdrawing outside call facility from 4th August, 2002 to 26th August, 2002 i. e. , 23 day @ Rs.500/- per day. (c) Payment of Rs.3 lacs compensation for mental harassment and adverse effect on reputation and prestige. (d) Payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. (e) Payment of interest @ 18% per annum from date of complaint till payment.

(3.) The O. P. in its version has stated that the complainant while paying the cheque for Rs.607/- dated 2.8.2002 did not mention the mobile number on the cheque. Because of this the amount could not be credited to the account of the complainant and was kept in suspense account. As regards outgoing calls in June 2002 is concerned, the O. P. states that the bill of Rs.2,307/- including Rs.1,547/- as arrears were due from the complainant but the complainant deposited only Rs.1,550/- on 12.6.2002 and did not deposit balance of Rs.757/-, therefore, outgoing calls were barred on 17.6.2002 and on deposit of Rs.757/- on 27.6.2002 the facility was restored.