Back
NCDRC Refuses to Enhance Rs 5,000 Compensation in Lifetime Validity Case
The has firmly shut the door on an advocate's attempt to secure enhanced compensation from , ruling that a consumer cannot claim damages without proving actual loss or establishing the terms of a service scheme. The bench, led by Justice A. P. Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya, dismissed a filed by , a practicing lawyer from Haridwar, who had sought compensation of ₹20 lakh for the disconnection of his mobile number.
A Lifetime Promise or a 999-Day Scheme?
The dispute originated in when Sharma purchased a mobile connection from , paying ₹975 under what he believed was a "." According to Sharma, the company assured him that the connection would remain valid for life. However, after working smoothly until , the service began to deteriorate, and by early 2008, his number was permanently terminated and allegedly reassigned to another user.
, however, maintained that its "" was only valid for 999 days, after which subscribers needed to recharge. The company pointed out that Sharma's number had actually remained active for 1,077 days—including an extra 78 days beyond the promised period—before being disconnected due to non-recharge. The company cited to support its position.
The Legal Battle Through Three Forums
Sharma first approached the in , but his complaint was dismissed in . An appeal to the was initially dismissed for non-appearance, but the NCDRC restored it in . Following a remand, the District Commission in partially allowed the complaint, ordering to restore the connection and pay ₹5,000 as damages. Dissatisfied with the quantum, Sharma appealed to the seeking enhancement to the maximum pecuniary limit of ₹20 lakh.
The , however, affirmed the award, observing that Sharma had failed to produce any to prove that he had purchased a or that the disconnection was arbitrary. It noted that his claim for ₹20 lakh was "."
No Evidence, No Enhancement
Before the NCDRC, Sharma's counsel argued that the compensation was disproportionate to the
and harassment suffered by a legal professional. But the Commission was unimpressed.
"We have not been able to locate any material or valid reason so as to disagree with the
recorded by the fora below,"
the bench stated, adding that there was no "
or illegality" warranting interference in revision.
The NCDRC highlighted that the petitioner failed to produce any receipt or document showing he had subscribed to a
. It also noted the absence of evidence to prove that the disconnection caused any specific loss or damage.
"The petitioner's claim for enhancement of compensation to ₹20 lakh was unsupported by specific and credible evidence,"
the judgment read.
The Final Word
Dismissing the as meritless, the NCDRC reiterated the limited scope of , citing Supreme Court precedents in , , and The Commission made it clear that a is not an opportunity to re-agitate factual findings unless a clear legal error or is demonstrated.
The decision underscores the importance of in consumer disputes and serves as a reminder that even a consumer who is a legal professional must substantiate claims with concrete proof. For now, Sharma will have to make do with the ₹5,000 awarded by the District Commission—and the lesson that a promise, unless documented, may not hold up in court.
