Date of Filing:17/01/2018
Date of Order:03/10/2018
BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27.
Dated:03rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
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.110/2018
COMPLAINANT/S | | Sri. SANTOSH KRISHNA MURTHY, Aged 37 years, Address:No.1534/H, 16th Main, 2nd A Cross, J.P. Nagar, 2nd Phase, Bangalore 560 078. Contact No.9844171522. (Complainant – In person) |
| |
V/s
OPPOSITE PARTY/IES | | BHARATHI AIRTEL LIMITED, No.55, Divyasree Towers, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560 029, (Sri B.J.Mahesh Adv. for O.P) |
| |
ORDER
BY SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party(hereinafter referred to as O.P) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Forum to direct the O.P to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment, abuse of time, charging excess payment, and Rs.40,000/- towards time spent on the case and cost of future expenses and to refund Rs.118/- against delayed payment fee and Rs.706/- credit balance in his account.
2. The brief facts of the complaintare that, Complainant is subscriber of the O.P bearing landline phone No. 080 4222 8183 having broadband services also and the relationship No.7027560721. In the month of August 2017 the complainant paid the bill through his credit card payment but the same was credited to his account and in that respect he has lodged a complaint over mail on 12.09.2017. He received a Bill for Rs.9,003.23 during September 2017 and paid only Rs.7,074.10 was against six months of advance payment seeking clarification in respect of Rs.1,929.13. On 16.10.2017 he received a clarification that the amount payable is Rs.838/- for the period 17.08.2017 to 12.09.2017 and not Rs.1,929.13. The delayed payment fee reflecting in the bill was waived. Again levied delayed payment fee and the same was corresponded. He was informed the same could not be waived. The bill for Nov.2017 reflected a balance of Rs.706/- post deduction of Rs.118/- towards delayed payment. Even though he had paid the amount in time the said imposition of delayed fee of Rs.118/- is not proper. O.P also insisting his bank statements which was according to him not required. He was embarrassed by the employees of the O.P for repeatedly demanding him to provide the details of the bank account statement and the credit cards. There have been near 100 of mails exchanged. He was put to frustration and mental stress. He has been charged excess. Hence the complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice O.P appeared through their counsel and filed its version contending that, the complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 dated 01.09.2009 reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5631 in General Manager, Telecom V/s M.Krishnan& another followed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the order dated 18.07.2012 passed in Revision Petition No.398/2011(Ziyauddin Alvi V/s Bharti Airtel Ltd.,). In view of the above, dispute between complainant and O.P under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides for adjudication of dispute under the provisions of Arbitration Act on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. O.P further submitted that the complainant has suppressed the material facts as such the grievance of the complainant sought for refund of Rs.118/- towards delayed payment and Rs.706/- towards credit balance cannot be accepted. The delayed payment is already been waived off and as sum of Rs.706/- is still available in the account of the complainant.
5. O.P further submitted that the complainant is a subscriber in respect of the telephone No. 080 42228183 and the complainant was initially using Rs.899/- monthly plan tariff plan till September 2017. The monthly bill for the period 17.08.2017 to 16.09.2017 was issued for Rs.9,003.23 and complainant paid only Rs.7,074.10. The contention of the complainant since he has got the plan changed from Rs.899/- to Six month combo plan which was with effect from 12.09.2017. Since the activation of new plan was in the midst of the billing cycle, the billing was done on pro-rata basis and accordingly the bill was issued and as a good will gesture O.P has agreed to waive the remaining amount. However as per the procedure/conditions Rs.100/- was imposed as late payment fee in the next bill and Rs.118/- charged along with taxes is waived off. O.P further contended that, bill dated 18.11.2017 in view of the waiver, an amount of Rs.706/- is shown as credit balance in the account of the complainant which means complainant is having an additional amount of Rs.706/-. It has denied the averments and allegations made in the complaint parawise and prayed this forum to dismiss the complaint.
6. In order to substantiate their case, parties have filed their affidavit evidence, documents. Heard the arguments.The following points arise for our consideration are:-
(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?
7. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (1) : In the Negative.
POINT (2): In the Negative.
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No.(1) & (2):-
8. In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence mainly reiterating the facts as stated in the complaint. So also O.P reiterating the facts as stated in the version.
9. It is not in dispute that the complainant is a customer having availed the land line services from O.P to the telephone No. 080-422228183 along with broadband services. On the correspondence made by the complainant the O.P has set right the accounts and O.P in fact in the version and also in the evidence contended that there is an amount of Rs.706/- to the credit of the complainant. OP has also produced Ex.R1 the account statement wherein it has clearly mentioned that the Rs.706/- is in the credit of the complainant’s account. No excess billing has been produced. Even if there was any excess billing the same was rectified by O.P and the account statement clearly shows that O.P is due a sum of Rs.706/- to the complainant. On perusing the correspondence made, there is no mention of O.P’s demanding the complainant the bank statement, the credit card details. In view of this we seen there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of O.P. and hence we answer Point No.1 in the Negative and the complainant is not entitle for any reliefs as claimed and hence we answer Point No.2 is also in the Negative and pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 3rd Day of OCTOBER 2018)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
CW-1:Mr.Santosh Krishna Murthy- Complainant.
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex P1 to P6: Copies of the payment receipts (6 Nos.).
Ex P7 & P8: Copies of email correspondences
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1: Sri Siddaveer Chakki, Authorized Signatory of O.P
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
Ex R1: Copy of the Account Statement dated 15.03.2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
*RAK
