RELIANCE INFOCOMM SERVICES & ORS Vs. MANVINDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Reliance India Mobile against the order of the District Forum dated 14.9.2005 by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed in the following terms:

(2.) THE complainant was a subscriber of Reliance India Mobile having telephone No. 93162 -17074. The only point for determination is whether before the expiry of due date of payment can the telephone be disconnected or the facility of outgoing calls be barred? A bill dated 1.11.2004 for the period 1.10.2004 to 31.10.2004 was issued to the complainant in the sum of Rs. 604. The due date of payment without surcharge was 23.11.2004 and Rs. 629 were payable if the amount was not paid by due date. There is no denying the fact that the bill was not paid upto the due date i.e., 23.11.2004. Another bill dated 1.12.2004 was issued for the period 1.11.2004 to 30.11.2004. In this bill, the outstanding arrears of Rs. 604 along with surcharge due towards bill dated 1.11.2004 for the period 1.10.2004 to 31.10.204 were also added and the total sum payable in the bill dated 1.12.2004 was shown as Rs. 1,202 by due date which also included the current charges for the period 1.11.2004 to 30.11.2004. The amount payable towards the bill dated 1.12.2004 was upto 25.12.2004. If the bill was not paid by 25.12.2004 then Rs. 1,232 was payable after the due date. However, on 18.12.2004 at about 2.00 p.m. the complainant received a message on his mobile reading as "outgoing calls de -activated". When he visited the concerned office of the Reliance India Mobile he was told that since he had not paid the bills so outgoing facility had been barred. According to the complainant, the bill dated 1.12.2004 in which the amount of the previous bill dated 1.11.2004 was also added was payable on or before 25.12.2004 and, therefore, the outgoing calls facility could not have been barred. This led the complainant to file a complaint before the District Forum in which a sum of Rs. 50,000 was claimed as compensation on account of loss of business.

(3.) THE opposite parties before the District Forum had contested the complaint and submitted before the District Forum that the complainant was a chronic defaulter and since the bill dated 1.11.2004 had not been paid the company was entitled to withdraw the facility of outgoing calls. The complaint was allowed as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal.