Date of Filing : 19/06/2015
Order No. 16 dt. 02/01/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant enjoyed the telephone facility from o.p. and during the continuation of the said facility the complainant enjoyed the Broad Band Services effected from Nov. 2012 to Oct. 2013. The complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.2754/- which was adjusted in accordance with the internet usage. The complainant raised a dispute in respect of bill no.114819296 dt.9.8.13 for the period from 1.7.13 to 31.7.13 for Rs.4908/-. After adjustment of advance balance amount it was found that the amount was due to o.p. to the tune of Rs.7454.57, but the enclosure shows enjoyment of Broad Band facility was for 807 hours 42 minutes 01 seconds during the said month of July 2013. It was further emphasized by the complainant that the said month completed within 744 hours (31 days x 24 hours per day). So, it was impossible for the complainant to use Broad Band facility for 807 hours 42 minutes 01 seconds during the said period. Subsequently o.p. sent another bill for the period from 1.1.14 to 31.1.14 for Rs.10,906.16 and further bill was also sent to the complainant for the period from 1.10.14 to 31.10.14 amounting to Rs.5561.82 after disconnecting Broad Band Services on 23.10.13. Since there was irregularities in the bills sent by o.p. therefore the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for cancellation of the amount of those bills claimed by o.p. and also prayed for compensation and litigation cost.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the telephone number has been provided with Broad Band Services with a limited plan of B.B. Home 299 Combo (annual plan with discount @ 20%) with effect from 1.8.11 for which the bill was raised on 9.9.11 for Rs.2667/- (including service tax plus extra usages) and the complainant also paid the bill. Subsequently next annual bill for the period 1.8.12 to 31.7.13 was issued on 9.9.12 for Rs.2706 (including service tax plus extra usages) and the complainant also paid the bill amounting to Rs.2754/- (including Rs.48 for bill dt.9.10.12 as usage charges) on 11.10.12. The subscriber changed his B.B. Plan to BBG 500 (Combo / Annual) on 11.10.12 and the bill was issued on 9.11.12 without BB charges (rental and usage both), only for telephone charge Rs.117.94 and also giving credit adjustment of Rs.2164.85 for the period 11.10.12 to 1.8.13. Subsequent bills issued only for landline call charges and adjusted against the excess credit amount. On 9.8.13 the bill issued with Broad Band usage only (without BB Rent) covering the usage period from 11.10.12 to 31.7.13 for Rs.5661.67 (including landline usage charges Rs.592.80) and after balance credit adjustment of Rs.754.57 with net payable amount of Rs.4908/- only. BB usages were not available under AOTR end till 19.3.16 after persuasion of IT Cell the details data received by o.ps. and it is found that the bill has been generated taking BB usages for the period from 11.10.12 to 31.7.13 may be due to some system error allowing free usages only for one month. The total chargeable BB usages are 26447068 KB, charged Rs.7120.67 and allowed free usage for July 2013 for Rs.2674.61 only, moreover, no rental was charged in that bill also. If the bill generated in normal way from Nov.2012 to Aug. 2013 the BB usage charge should be Rs.7716.40 instead of Rs.7120.68. There should be discount of Rs.4778.46 instead of Rs.2674.61 and in that case BB usage payable amount would be Rs.2937.97 only instead of Rs.4446.07. The net payable bill amounting to 3967.14 (including service tax, landline charges Rs.592.80) and after balance credit adjustment of Rs.574.57 with net payable amount of Rs.3213/- instead of Rs.4908/-. On 9.2.14 the bill generated taking annual rental for the period 26.10.12 to 25.10.13 for Rs.5284.93 plus service tax Rs.653.21 i.e. total Rs.5938.14 less 10% discount of Rs.528.49. The telephone line has been disconnected on 17.9.13 (as outgoing bar) and on 23.10.13 9as incoming bar) also due to non payment of bills. After calculation of the bill amount the o.p. stated that net payable was Rs.9538/-. The case filed by the complainant relates to the year 2013 and the case is accordingly barred by limitation. On the basis of the said fact o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant availed the service of o.p.?
- Whether there was any anomaly in the bill sent by o.p.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of o.p.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant enjoyed the telephone facility from o.p. and during the continuation of the said facility the complainant enjoyed the Broad Band Services effected from Nov. 2012 to Oct. 2013. The complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.2754/- which was monthly adjusted in accordance with the internet usage. The complainant raised a dispute in respect of bill no.114819296 dt.9.8.13 for the period from 1.7.13 to 31.7.13 for Rs.4908/-. After adjustment of advance balance amount it was found that the amount was due to o.p. to the tune of Rs.7454.57, but the enclosure shows enjoyment of Broad Band facility was for 807 hours 42 minutes 01 seconds during the said month of July 2013. It was further emphasized by the complainant that the said month completed within 744 hours (31 days x 24 hours per day). So, it was impossible for the complainant to use Broad Band facility for 807 hours 42 minutes 01 seconds during the said period. Subsequently o.p. sent another bill for the period from 1.1.14 to 31.1.14 for Rs.10,906.16 and further bill was also sent to the complainant for the period from 1.10.14 to 31.10.14 amounting to Rs.5561.82 after disconnecting Broad Band Services on 23.10.13. Since there was irregularities in the bills sent by o.p. therefore the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for cancellation of the amount of those bills claimed by o.p. and also prayed for other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that the telephone number has been provided with Broad Band Services with a limited plan of B.B. Home 299 Combo (annual plan with discount @ 20%) with effect from 1.8.11 for which the bill was raised on 9.9.11 for Rs.2667/- (including service tax plus extra usages) and the complainant also paid the bill. Subsequently next annual bill for the period 1.8.12 to 31.7.13 was issued on 9.9.12 for Rs.2706 (including service tax plus extra usages) and the complainant also paid the bill amounting to Rs.2754/- (including Rs.48 for bill dt.9.10.12 as usage charges) on 11.10.12. The subscriber changed his B.B. Plan to BBG 500 (Combo / Annual) on 11.10.12 and the bill was issued on 9.11.12 without BB charges (rental and usage both), only for telephone charge Rs.117.94 and also giving credit adjustment of Rs.2164.85 for the period 11.10.12 to 1.8.13. Subsequent bills issued only for landline call charges and adjusted against the excess credit amount. On 9.8.13 the bill issued with Broad Band usage only (without BB Rent) covering the usage period from 11.10.12 to 31.7.13 for Rs.5661.67 (including landline usage charges Rs.592.80) and after balance credit adjustment of Rs.754.57 with net payable amount of Rs.4908/- only. BB usages were not available under AOTR end till 19.3.16 after persuasion of IT Cell the details data received by o.ps. and it is found that the bill has been generated taking BB usages for the period from 11.10.12 to 31.7.13 may be due to some system error allowing free usages only for one month. The total chargeable BB usages are 26447068 KB, charged Rs.7120.67 and allowed free usage for July 2013 for Rs.2674.61 only, moreover, no rental was charged in that bill also. If the bill generated in normal way from Nov.2012 to Aug. 2013 the BB usage charge should be Rs.7716.40 instead of Rs.7120.68. There should be discount of Rs.4778.46 instead of Rs.2674.61 and in that case BB usage payable amount would be Rs.2937.97 only instead of Rs.4446.07. The net payable bill amounting to 3967.14 (including service tax, landline charges Rs.592.80) and after balance credit adjustment of Rs.574.57 with net payable amount of Rs.3213/- instead of Rs.4908/-. On 9.2.14 the bill generated taking annual rental for the period 26.10.12 to 25.10.13 for Rs.5284.93 plus service tax Rs.653.21 i.e. total Rs.5938.14 less 10% discount of Rs.528.49. The telephone line has been disconnected on 17.9.13 (as outgoing bar) and on 23.10.13 9as incoming bar) also due to non payment of bills. After calculation of the bill amount the o.p. stated that net payable was Rs.9538/-. The case filed by the complainant relates to the year 2013 and the case is accordingly barred by limitation. On the basis of the said fact o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant availed the telephone service from o.p. and the dispute arose with regard to the bill dt.9.8.13 and 9.2.14. It has been alleged by the complainant that the proposed bill dt.9.8.13 considered the amount twice for the same period. So far as the bill dt.9.2.14 is concerned the annual rental of BBFN Combo 500 annual (Broad Band and landline) as Rs.5344.33 for the period from 26.10.12 to 25.10.13 which has pointed out by the complainant that it was erroneous one and it should be Rs.4000/-. The complainant has emphasized that the complainant cannot be a victim due to some system error. The complainant has also stated that after calculation the total amount is due to o.p. to the tune of Rs.1335.15.
Ld. lawyer for o.p. pointed out as to how the calculation was made during the said period and step by step o.p. substantiated the claim of o.p. It appears from the record that o.p. put some questions to the complainant with regard to the claim made by o.p. but the complainant did not answer those questions put by o.p.
From the materials on record it appears that o.p. has claimed that the complainant has failed to understand the bills sent by o.p. It appears that o.p. did not adduce any evidence in support of their contention, but o.p. in the w/v categorically stated that as to how the amount claimed by o.p. from the complainant. After adjustment of the advance payment made by the complainant and the bill generated against the complainant finally it was found that the complainant is lying due to the tune of Rs.9538/- not the huge amount as claimed by the complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we hold that the complainant will be entitled to pay the amount of Rs.9538 only instead of the amount claimed by the complainant in the petition of complaint and thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.318/2015 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. The o.p. is directed to receive the amount of Rs.9538/- (Rupees nine thousand five hundred thirty eight) only from the complainant in respect of three bills generated by o.p. as challenged by the complainant and the o.p. is also directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
