ESCOTEL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LTD Vs. DHANPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Escotel Mobile Communications Ltd. against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the District Forum, Nainital whereby the learned Forum allowed a claim of Rs.9,000/- to the claimant for the loss of battery of his mobile set and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for disconnection of the mobile facility to the complainant and Rs.1,500/- as cost of the proceedings.

(2.) The complainant was consumer of Escotel Mabile phone No.9837033113 and his account No. is 00064730. It is said that till March, 2000, he has made regular payments. But all of a sudden his telephone was disconnected. He prayed for connection and correction of accounts, but it was not done. Then he gave a notice in June, 2000 which was received by the Company, still connection was not done. Thereafter the complaint was filed. The Insurance Company filed a written statement and alleged that it is true that deposit was made by the complainant in the month of March, but by clerical mistake, instead of connection No.9837033113 the deposit was credited in the connection No.9837033133. The complainant was asked to submit the receipt, but, he did not submit and when the correct information was revealed to the appellant, it was connected in August, 2000 and even the connection fee and ground rent was not charged (sic.) and after hearing the parties allowed the complaint against which order, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) We are satisfied that there was deficiency in service of the appellant. The deposit has specifically been made as is apparent from the receipt against mobile telephone No.9837033113 and if it was credited in the phone No.9837033133, this was a mistake of the appellant and as soon as he knew it, the mistake should have been rectified and they should have sought apology from the complainant or should have given him remissions and reduction as permissible under the rules. It is true that there is no evidence of any verbal request by the complainant, but it is still true that in June, 2000 a notice was given to the appellant and the said notice was received by them. Then also, within minutes of the receipt, they should have restored the connection of the complainant, but still they have made the complainant to wait till 25.8.2000. No mannual work is to be done in reconnection of a mobile phone; only some figures are to be used in pushing the buttons of computers, but for that the appellant will take two or three months' time, is not at all appreciable even if we take it correct that from March, 2000 till June, 2000 the appellant did not inform or request or pray for connection.