The Complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant made a payment of Rs.228/- to Airtel for Mobile No.9xxxxxxx4, but the said amount was not up dated in spite of several communication. Subsequently, the said connection was disconnected. The payment of Rs.228/- was adjusted and fresh demand of Rs. 442.21 was generated and further several calls were made to another mobile no.8xxxxxx4 by the OP for realization of payment of Rs.672.23. The same was made by the Complainmant to the OPs but the connection of the said mobile was not resorted. Hence, the complainant filed a case against Airtel in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit – II (Central) vide Complaint Case No. CC/200/2017.
The complaint’s main case is that the OP illegally disconnected their connection even after payment of Rs.228/- to the OPs. On the other hand the OP’s case, in brief, is that the Complainant is habitual defaulter and he suppressed the fact and for non payment of outstanding dues as per TRAI Rules before full and final statement the Complainant is not entitled to get reconnection and for that the Complainant’s complaint is liable to be dismissed.
To prove the case both the parties adduced Evidence on Affidavit and they have filed questionnaires and replies vis-à-vis along with relevant documents in support of their respective case.
In this case the complainant has filed written argument and also both the Ld. Lawyer for both parties have advanced their respective argument in respect of their respective cases. The main prayer of the complainant is for restoration of the mobile connection which was disconnected in spite of payment of Rs.228/- through credit card.
The Ld. Lawyer from the complainant has further advanced argument that the complainant does not have any such mobile No.as 8xxxxxxx4 which is misleading statement of the OP.
After perusal of records, the Hon’ble Forum held as follows:
Admittedly, the disputed mobile number has been disconnected by the OP. Relying upon the aforesaid admission as to adjustment of the disputed amount of Rs.228/- we can safely conclude tht the complainant is entitled to get restoration of his mobile number. The OP has failed to establish the outstanding dues against the complainant for the impugned disconnected mobile even after payment of dues and for that the complainant is entitled to get relief as to the prayer for removal of late fees and charged for blocked disconnected period.
Regarding compensation for Rs.25,000/- question of damages suffered for such deficiency in service has not been categorically proved by cogent evidence but considering the usual question of harassment for such disconnection we are of view that the complainant is entitled to get
compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.
On the basis of the above discussions we find that all the points are disposed of in favour of the complainant in part and, as such, the complainant is entitled to get restoration of his mobile number No.9xxxxxxxx4 along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- and removal of late fee and charges for the blocked disconnected period.