- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant/complainant having been aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2007 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called as "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No. 386/06.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased A post -paid mobile connection No. 9300602010 on 28.1.2006 from OP Reliance Web Word Express, Malik Agencies, Durg. After about 15 days of purchase on 12.2.2006, a message appeared on said mobile to make payment of bill related to mobile otherwise services would be stopped. The complainant approached the office of O.P. dealer there he asked for bill, but he was reported to have been told that the mobile connection being on monthly basis billing, it could not be generated on Computer presently so he was advised to deposit the amount and take receipt. The complainant in absence of bill reportedly did not deposit amount. The mobile connection was ceased on 13.2.2006, therefore, this complaint was filed before the District Forum, Durg on 3.10.2006.
(3.) THERE was no dispute that the post -paid mobile connection No. 9300602010 was purchased by the appellant/complainant on 28.1.2006 and he was given a message on 12.2.2006 "to make payment of bill, otherwise mobile connection would be ceased." Only question involved in this appeal was whether the appellant/complainant had tried to deposit the amount for the bill and it was denied by the employee of the respondent to cause deficiency in service? The District Forum in para 5 of its order has properly clarified the point on this question. Due to controversial version of two documents, as pointed out by the District Forum in Para 5 of its order, it could not be relied upon that the appellant/complainant was denied the collection of amount by the employee of respondent. During appeal, learned Counsel for appellant argued that the mobile connection was on monthly basis so disconnection of the mobile within 15 days period was not proper and justified. The mobile company should have waited for the month thereby on receipt of monthly bill, the bill amount could have been paid by the appellant. He could not produce any document to support that bill was to be received after the end of the month only. On observing the mobile bill dated 8.2.2006 on record, it was found that appellant/complainant had already availed call charges for Rs. 3,777.42 (S. No. 23). As per reply dated 2.5.2006 sent by respondent/OP, in reply to his notice dated 12.4.2006, also clarified that due to exceeding of credit limit, he was given an intimation by SMS by Mobile Company to deposit the amount of bill, but the amount was not deposited by the appellant.;