PAUL G BRAHMAKULAM Vs. SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the appellant/complainant challenging the order dated 28.9.2005 passed by the District Forum, Bangalore Urban I Additional, in Complaint No. 1645/2002 dismissing his complaint.

(2.) The complainant was allotted Mobile Golden No. 9844054321 by the O.P. in the year 1997. This fact is not disputed by the O.P. In the year 2002, the O.P. issued an advertisement wherein it was stated that Mobile No. 9844054321 is the "Consumer Service Number" as if it was their number, to enable its consumers to cotact the said number if they wanted any service. By virtue of this, according to the complainant, he received innumerable incoming calls which made him to pay a sum of Rs. 31,500 since in those days, incoming calls were also chargeable.

(3.) The case of O.P. is one of denial. The complainant produced certain documents issued by the O.P. before the District Forum wherein Mobile No. 9844054321 was shown as Consumer Service Number. When such being the case, necessarily whoever required service normally would have contacted Mobile No. 9844054321. This, in our opinion, amounts to "Deficiency in Service" insofar as the complainant is concerned. Therefore, the District Forum was not right in dismissing the complaint. The action of the O.P. in widely publishing Mobile No. 9844054321 as Consumer Service Number has made the complainant to suffer loss to the extent of Rs. 31,500. The complainant also produced certain bills before the District Forum to show that he was made to pay Rs. 31,500 in view of the mistake committed by the O.P. Therefore, to that extent, the complainant is to be compensated. So far as the mental agony and hardship is concerned, no doubt, the complainant was put to lot of inconvenience because of the fact that there were number of incoming calls to that number. Therefore, the complainant in all is entitled for compensation of Rs. 40,000 from the O.P.