Date of Filing: 01/08/2016

Date of Order: 30/01/2019

BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

Dated:   30^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019

PRESENT

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT

SRI D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1053/2016

V/s

ORDER

BY SRI.SURESH.D., MEMBER

1.  This is the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as O.P) alleging deficiency in service and to direct the O.P to refund excess  amount of Rs.4,862/-collected  along with service tax collected and late payment fee billed in the past 5 months with  interest at 24% per annum from the date of receiving the amount till the date of payment and to pay damages of Rs.19,00,000/-  for harassment, loss of business, mental torture, tension non co- operation, loss of client, torture and harassment and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper along with costs and such other expenses.

2.     Brief facts of the complaint are that: the complainant had Airtel network connection along with international roaming service activated under plan of Rs.199/-along with IR plan of Rs.999/-provided by O.P Company dated 17-11-2015.  Unfortunately complainant received a bill for Rs. 20,892.71 for the period 22.11.2015 to 22.12.2015. Complainant brought to the notice of customer care representative and floor supervisor who admitted that the amount was wrongly billed due to system error and also he stated that due to said inconvenience international roaming calls not being charged at the subsidized rates in accordance with the IR 999 plan.  Thus the complainant asked to send an email  for the same,  and after complainant received an E-mail confirming credit of Rs.17014.70 from one Mr. Prabhu a, service specialist, of Airtel business and requested complainant to pay difference Rs.3875/- to enjoy un interrupted  service and  made payment through cheque dated 7.1.2016 drawn on SBI. Surprisingly Rs.17,014.70 was not deducted as promised by Mr. Prabhu in the next bill.  Even after several e-mail correspondences with the OP’s officials, the said issue was not solved. After umpteen attempts to resolve the matter through all modes of communication, for which complainant received an email confirmation from the OP for crediting of Rs.11,917.16 on 26.02.2016 and another information also he received that the credit of Rs.689.65 on 27.02.2016 after deducting these two amounts from the outstanding bill complainant is liable to pay Rs.4,861.27 which is under dispute.  In order to have continuous and uninterrupted connection, complainant paid Rs. 4862/- through cheque date 10.3.2016. Further again bill was raised for a sum of Rs. 4,745/-. Complainant paid the same through cheque on 29.3.2016. During this period the complainant’s service was barred two times.  Without informing disconnection of the service. The complainant   lost his reputation, customers, and suffered loss of several crores of business due to the OP’s act.  Earlier Ops have given written confirmation that they would provide credit of Rs. 17,014.70 and that this charge will be reverted in the forthcoming bills. But same was not done by the Op. Further Ops have repeatedly sent reminders in respect of above said balance amount which is disturbing and it is breach of trust, cheating and deficiency of service. Complainant issued legal notice on 12-5-2016 demanding for repayment of excess amount collected from him. Hence this complaint.

3.     Upon service of Notice, Op appeared before the forum and has taken the contention that the remedy available for the complainant is under section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides for adjudication of dispute through Arbitration Act.  Op admits having  agreed to waiveRs.11,917.16 in the bill date. 25.12.2015. However complainant was informed that the process of subsequent bills would take considerable time and in the meanwhile the subscriber was informed to pay the remaining charges. In fact, from the month of December 2015 itself, the waiver of aforesaid amount was processed but same was not reflected in the bill date. 25.03.2015. Hence there is no willful negligence or default on the part of the OP.  It is admitted that Rs.11,917/- was waived. Complainant is entitled for credit of the said amount and also late payment charges levied on the stated sum i.e., Rs.12,606.81 was given credit to the subscriber which reflected in the bill date 25.3.2016. OP has denied the allegation in respect of disconnecting the service.  Hence  prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.     In order to substantiate their respective cases, the complainant and O.P have filed their affidavit evidence and documents. We have heard the arguments of complainant and arguments of O.P taken as heard as they remained absent at the time of argument.

 5.    The following points will arise for our consideration is:-

                                1)   Whether the complainant has proved

                      deficiency in service on the part of the

                      O.P?

2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to

     the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT 1):         In the Affirmative.

POINT 2):         Partly in the affirmative.

As per the final order:

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

7.     On perusal of the evidence and documents filed by the both side, it becomes clear that the complainant is a subscriber of Op company and he had Airtel network service along with international roaming service activated under the plan of Rs.149/- along with IR plan of Rs.999/- and he was provided the same on 17.11.2015 and 10.12.2015 for which complainant has produce copy of Email. It is also admitted facts that for the period of 23.11.2015 to 22.12.2015, a bill was raised for a sum of Rs.20,892.71 and the same was wrongly billed. Immediately after the complaint to the customer care, they agreed to waive the same, charged in the form of international roaming charges of Rs.14,860/- and service tax of Rs.2,154.17  and he also agreed  to adjust in the forth coming invoice. Believing this, complainant paid subsequent bills. Where as in the subsequent monthly bills, the same was not deducted, and bill issued by the Op included outstanding amount, for which, complainant made many correspondence with the Op to resolve the issue ultimately Op sent an email dated 26.02.2016 wherein he changed his version and confirmed that there will be credit for a sum of Rs.11,917.16 only which included service tax and same was demanded to be paid. The very act of Op shows that they are following dual policy practice against to the principal of justice and Ops have given a vague explanation in their version and have waived only Rs.11,917.16 out of Rs.17,014.70. Such kind of contradictory decision taken by the Op Company is not sustainable under the law.  Further we have perused Email correspondences and averments made in the version which are not compatible with one another. Thus the subsequent decision dated 26.02.2016 taken by the Op cannot be acceptable and complainant is entitled for the waiver of Rs.17,014.70. Accordingly complainant has paid excess amount of Rs.4,862/- and is entitled to get back the same. Further for no fault on the part of complainant, Op disconnected the service twice which  made the complainant to face lot of inconveniences. Hence complainant is liable to compensate the same. Hence we answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINT NO.2:

8.    In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the very act of Op has caused harm to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get reimbursement of Rs.4,862/-  as excess paid amount along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum. O.P has put the complainant under physical and mental stress for which O.P has to compensate him for which we assess the damages at Rs.2,000/-. The act of the O.P made the complainant to file this complaint by engaging advocate by paying his professional fee and also spent money in attending the forums hearing on each and every day.  We are of the opinion that if a sum of Rs.2,000/- if awarded towards litigation expenses ends of justice will be met.  Hence Point No: 2 partly in the affirmative and we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed with cost.

2. OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,862/- received   as excess from the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint to the complainant.

3. Further O.P is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards damages and  of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses to the complainant.

4.  The O.P is directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.

5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the complaints/ version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this     30^th Day of January 2019)

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Sri. Vishal Surana., -Complainant.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Doc.No.1:            Copy of the e-mails communications

Doc.No.2:           Copy of the legal notice.

Doc.No.3:            Copy of the postal acknowledgment

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1 : Sri.Siddaveer Chakki– of Op

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

-Nil-

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT