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.
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.
However, it was still disputed that it is also a false plea that on 25.8.2000 the facility was restored to the complainant. The complainant said that it was not connected even on 25.8.2000. It was to be proved by the appellant that they had made the connection and restored the facility. No evidence to this effect has been given. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that if the complainant did not avail the facility, did not use the telephone, how can they help it. This is true, but had there been any connection or restoration of facility, then, immdediately after 25.8.2000 even without user if the complainant have not surrendered his telephone, some bills, may be only for rent, could have been issued by the appellant. But no such evidence has been given by the appellant. To the contrary, the case of the complainant was emphatically argued that even today the facility has not been restored. Even if the case of the respondent is taken to be correct, then also, the connection of the complainant was not restored for 6 months March to August without any fault of his. There is proved deficiency in service of the appellant and, therefore, they must pay compensation for that. It is to be considered, what should be the compensation. The complainant has claimed a loss of Rs. 9,000/- for the loss of the battery of the mobile set. We do not know of any mobile set, the battery of which might cost Rs. 9,000/-from the very date, the mobile system was introduced. The complainant did not produce any receipt of the purchase of any battery of the mobile set. Rather it was informed by his Counsel that the mobile set along with the battery was presented to the complainant by a friend from abroad. Even if it is taken to be true, then also, there must be some price of the battery. It is not said that the mobile set was destroyed for non-use. It is said that battery was destroyed. Even if a set is not used or disconnected, then also, the battery can be charged or re-charged. Ordinarily, a battery is consumed within a year or two. In the circumstances like this, we are unable to imagine the loss of battery for Rs. 9,000/-. Ordinarily, in the market, batteries are available between Rs. 600/- to 1,000/-. Therefore, we find it fit that a maximum compensation of Rs. 1,000/- is optimum in a case like this.
3. AS regards the amount of compensation. it is true that the complainant has to face some difficulties when his mobile facility was withdrawn. But as the affidavit of the complainant is, he was a Company Commander in Home Guard and in discharge of his official duties, he was using this telephone. If it is so, the loss, if any, is that of the Government and not the personal loss of the complainant and it is the Government who should have filed the complaint or claimed compensation on this account.
As regards, the complainant has got good reputation for having a mobile set in his friends, relations and as his telephone was dis-connected, he was insulted in the society, his credit was lower down, these are all hypothetical. Mobile is not a matter of status symbol. The discomfort or compensation, if any, can be allowed for non-connectivity or non-user in ordinary course, but today a mobile set is not a matter of status in the society. Even a vegetable sellers and Rikshawalas are having mobile sets and connections today. The complainant was not debarred from having any ground telephone or hiring any other set or getting any other connection in the name of his wife, brother, son if he was such a man who could not have slept without a mobile set by his side. Such a conjectural compensation of Rs. 20,000/- shows the anger and prejudice of the Forum against the Company. A compensation of Rs. 1,000/- will meet the needs of justice. Besides, the complainant may get the costs as awarded by the Forum because he has to assert his rights by filing a complaint in the Forum and engaging a lawyer for contesting the petition. He has also to rush up to the State Commission, where in our view, the cost shall be easy in part success and part failure of the parties. It is, however, since the connection does not appear to have been restored till date, the appellant shall not issue any demand of any charges after dis-connection in March, 2000 on the ground that the connection has been restored on 25.8.2000 and the complainant did not use it. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. It is, hereby, ordered that the complainant will get only a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as loss to his battery of the mobile set and Rs. 1,000/- as compensation, besides, cost of Rs. 1,500/- as awarded by the learned Forum. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal partly allowed.
