BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 473 of 2015
Date of Institution: 30.7.2015
Date of Decision: 26.7.2016
Amandeep Singh aged 35 years son of S. Avtar Singh resident of House No. 99, Prem Nagar, Gali No.3, Batala Road, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
M/s. BSNL Ranjit Avenue,Amritsar through its General Manager, Telephone
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: In person
For the Opposite Party : Sh. V.K.Sehgal,Adv.
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Amandeep Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that father of the complainant had a landline telephone connection No. 2425904 which is installed at the resident of the complainant . Father of the complainant namely Avtar Singh had expired on 20 June 2008 and thereafter the complainant has been using the telephone connection and paying the bills regularly, as such complainant is consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and is fully competent to file the present complaint. On December 2013, complainant had made a request to change his plan from 650 (512 KBPS) unlimited to 950 (4 Mbps till 8 GB after that 512 KBPS) unlimited, company had changed the same on 17th December 2013 but did not inform the complainant. In January 2014 the complainant got a bill and thereafter complainant came to know that the plan was changed (Bill-1) but the complainant did not get the exact speed according to the plan ( Speed test result). The complainant thereafter lodged a complaint in BSNL Portal on 7 Jan, 2014 bearing complaint No. PJB/CO/2014/336 which was closed on 25 Jan, 2014 with remarks speed is OK. Again the complainant lodged complaint on 27th Jan 2014 with complaint No. PJB/CO/2014/1405 and asked the opposite party to check the bandwidth logs, but the same was closed on 6th Feb, 2014 with remarks speed issue was due to the BB usages beyond 8 GB but the attached speed test was generated on Ist Jan 2014 on BSNL speed test portal itself. The complainant requested the opposite party to send him the correct bill but they did not issue the same. On 12th Feb 2014 the telephone facility of the complainant were barred . The complainant could not make call and used internet BB but still the opposite party send the bill of Feb 2014 and March 2014. The complainant lodged several complaint (PJB/CO/2014/843, PJB/CO/2014/1405, PJB/CO/2014/2076, PJB/CO/2014/2949,PJB/CO/2014/4030 and PJB/CO/2014/5146) and also sent e-mails to the opposite party but the complainant did not get the proper resolution. On 30th June 2015 complainant got letter from BSNL to pay the bill otherwise they will take legal action against him. The complainant has sought for following reliefs vide instant complaint :-
(1) Opposite party be directed to restore the connection No. 2425904 installed at the residence of the complainant.
(II) Bill of Rs. 3858/- be waived off.
(III) Compensation of Rs. 30000/- be also awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. As the telephone No. AR-2425904 is working in the name of Sh.Avtar Singh Daid, father of the complainant and not in the name of Amandeep Singh, so the present complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone ; that infact Sh. Avtar Singh Daid, father of the complainant has submitted an application form No. 002644 issued on 14.1.1988 (valid upto 13.1.1989) for a telephone connection in his name at 99, Prem Nagar, Gali No.3 (Rajinder Nagar), Batala Road, Amritsar with STD facility and a telephone No. AR 25904 was installed on 23.6.1989 as per office records. The father of the complainant had applied on 3.5.2000 for Caller Line Identification on his telephone No. AR 425904. The father of the complainant submitted an application form for Broadband Service on his telephone No. AR 2425904 with “Tariff Plan Hone 250” and a demand note No. W44454 dated 13.9.2005 for Rs. 1322/- was issued to the subscriber on account of outright purchase of Modem for use of Broadband on his telephone No.AR-2425904. The father of the complainant submitted another application dated 28.1.2008 in the office of the respondent for change of current broadband plan (Hone 250) to another Tariff Plan Hone 500 Combo on his telephone No. AR 2425904 and an Advice Note No. CV 23255 dated 30.1.2008 was issued by the Commercial Officer, BSNL, Amritsar for provision of Home 500 C on the telephone , as demanded. It is , however, correct that Broadband plan was changed from “Broadband Home Combo Unlimited 650 monthly” to “Broadband 950 unlimited Combo monthly” plan, which was provided on telephone on 17.12.2013 as shown on the reverse side of the bill dated 4.1.2014 of telephone No. AR 2425904 issued for Rs. 1201.07 paise . In Broadband Home 650 U.L.Plan, 100 free calls given in one month qua landline usage, beyond which calls are chaged @ Rs,1/- per call for BSNL Network & @ Rs.1.20 paise per call for other networks and the upload/download bandwidth given for broadband usage is 512 Kbps (kilo Bytes per Second). It is also admitted that in Broadband Home 950 U.L. Plan, the upload/download bandwidth given for broadband usage is 4 Mbps till 8 GM and after that, 512 Kbps speed ; that bills of telephone No. AR 2425904 of the complainant were issued strictly by the respondent as per broadband plan opted for by the complainant, who used to get the speed of broadband according to the said plan. It is further submitted that as per the office record, only one telephone bill dated 15.6.2015 for Rs. 1485.70 paise is pending for payment by the complainant in which the previous balance has been shown as Rs. 3857.70 paise , in which the sum of Rs. 2300/- has been adjusted against the security deposit lying at the credit of the complainant on 14.6.2015. On merits facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case complainant made into the witness box and tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-21 and closed his evidence.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence, Sh.V.K.Sehgal,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Alok Kaul, Assistant General Manager (Legal) Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP20 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. On the basis of the evidence on record, complainant has vehemently contended that on the request of the complainant , the broadband plan of the complainant was changed from 650 (512 Kbps) unlimited to 950 (4 mbps till 8 GB after that 512 Kbps) unlimited w.e.f. 17th December 2013. But however, the broadband facility as promised has not been provided to the complainant. The complainant made various complaints to the opposite party. But however, opposite party did not make any amends so far. Rather the opposite party disconnected the broadband facility service on 12.2.2014. But even then they issued bills for the months of Feb 2014 and March 2014 without any rhyme or reason. The opposite party is liable to restore the connection No. AR-2425904 installed at the residence of the complainant. Opposite party has also demanded an illegal amount of Rs. 3858/-, which is required to be waived off and the complainant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 30000/- on account of deficiency in service and it is contended that complaint may be allowed accordingly.
7. But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant is not proved to be the consumer of the opposite party. The A&A form has been executed by the father of the complainant namely Avtar Singh Daid. It is also an admitted fact that Avtar Singh Daid, father of the complainant has since expired. But however, complainant has not applied for transfer of the telephone connection in dispute from the name of his father to his own name. Reliance in this connection can be had on Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Revisionist Versus Ashish Kumar Respondent in Revision Petition No. 01 of 2013 decided on 22.3.2013 of the Hon’ble Uttarakhand State Commission, Dehradun wherein it has been held that:-
“Electricity connection is in the name of father of complainant and he has not got the connection transferred in his own name, complaint filed and held that there being no privity of contract between the consumer and the service provider, the complainant is not a consumer of the revisionist.”
Ratio laid down in judgement supra is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. As such, complainant is not competent to file the instant complaint against the opposite party because he is not proved to be a consumer under the opposite party.
8. Even on merits, complainant has failed to make out a case for grant of the reliefs claimed vide instant complaint. The demand has been raised as per actual usage of the broadband and calls made on the telephone above the limit of 100 free calls. The connection has been disconnected on account of the default in payment of the bill issued for the month of Feb., 2014. After disconnection of the telephone of the complainant, final bill Ex.OIP13 for Rs. 3886/- was raised after adjustment of Rs. 2300/- of the security deposit and another adjustment of Rs. 100/- balance amount of Rs. 1486/- was still outstanding and payable against the telephone connection in dispute . Regarding speed, on checking of the speed of the broadband connection of the complainant, it was found that the speed was OK. It was only after 8 GB usage when the speed becomes slow which was in consonance with the plan. As per plan availed by the complainant high speed is given only upto 8 GB usage. The complainant has not produced any evidence on record to prove that the speed on his broadband connection was not correct as per plan during GB usage. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
9. From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that complainant has absolutely failed to prove his case . The complainant is also not proved to be a consumer of the opposite party & as such he is not competent to maintain the instant complaint before this Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. Instant complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court which deserves to be dismissed.
10. Consequently , instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 26.7.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
