| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 435 of 2014 Date of Institution: 08-08-2014 Date of Decision: 19-08-2015 Kulbir Singh son of S.Rajinder Singh, resident of village: Danial, Tehsil: Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. Complainant Versus B.S.N.L. through its SDO, Sub Division, Rayya, Tehsil: Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. Opposite Party Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Sunpreet Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party: Sh. M.S.Chinna, Advocate Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Kulbir Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he obtained landline connection bearing No. 01853-221889 from Opposite Party and has been paying the bills regularly. The complainant also obtained Internet Connection from Opposite Party in the month of June/July, 2013, but the said Internet Connection is not in operation since April, 2014. Many complaints were made to the Opposite Party, but during their checking, DSL Cable only runs for 2 or 3 minutes and there was some default in the exchange. Complainant alleges that when the connection could not became operative and run, the complainant moved an application on 26.6.2014 to disconnect the said connection and exemption of arrears of bill and to stop the issuance of bills, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and rather threatened to continue to recover the bills from the complainant at the rate of Rs.900/- per month for the future period and also arrears from April, 2014. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to disconnect the said Internet Connection immediately and the Opposite Party be also directed not to claim any rent from April, 2014. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed affidavit of Sh.Alok Kumar Kaul, Assistant General Manager of Opposite Party in which it was submitted that on the application of the complainant, the telephone connection No. 01853-221889 was installed on 14.5.2012 in the name of the complainant. Thereafter, on the further application of the complainant, Broadband Internet Connection was provided to the aforesaid telephone connection of the complainant under the monthly Rs.750/- unlimited Plan. The said Broadband Internet Connection was being used by the complainant till 23.6.2014 as per the usage data. It is denied that the Broadband Internet Connection was not in operation and had not been working since April, 2014 as had been alleged by the complainant in his complaint. It is again denied that on checking, DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) cable only run for 2 or 3 minutes and it was told to the complainant that there was some fault in the exchange as alleged by the complainant. The Broadband Internet Connection of the complainant was disconnected due to non payment (DDNP) on 15.7.2014 on the bills dated 4.5.2014, 4.6.2014, 5.7.2014, 5.8.2014 worth Rs.3205.04. The telephone connection of the complainant had been disconnected on 15.7.2014 due to non payment of the bills, which are being strictly claimed upto the date of 15.7.2014 which the complainant has to pay legally. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sh.Alok Kumar Kaul, AGM Legal Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant obtained landline connection bearing No. 01853-221889 from Opposite Party and also obtained Internet Connection/ facility from Opposite Party in the month of June/July, 2013. Complainant submitted that said Internet Connection has not been in operation since April, 2014. Many complaints were made by the complainant to the Opposite Party through telephone as per details of bill Ex.C4. During checking by the officials of the Opposite Party, DSL Cable only runs for 2 or 3 minutes, so the officials of the Opposite Party stated that there is some default in the exchange. The complainant moved an application dated 25.6.2014 which was duly received by the Opposite Party on 26.6.2014 Ex.C1 stating to the Opposite Party that when the Broadband Internet Connection could not became operative, same should be disconnected and the Opposite Party should stop issuance of the bills and also exempt the arrears of bills, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant, rather they continued charging Rs.900/- per month from the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party as per the affidavit of Sh.Alok Kumar Koul, Assistant General Manager of Opposite Party, is that on the request of the complainant, the telephone connection in question was installed at the residence of the complainant i.e. at village: Danial, Tehsil: Baba Bakala, District Amritsar on 14.5.2012 in the name of the complainant. Thereafter, on the further application of the complainant, Broadband Internet Connection was provided to the aforesaid telephone connection of the complainant under the monthly Rs.750/- unlimited Plan and the complainant had been paying the bills in cash as issued by Opposite Party from time to time. It is denied that the Broadband Internet Connection was not in operation and had not been working since April, 2014 as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. Opposite Party denied that on checking, DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) cable only ran for 2 or 3 minutes and that the officials of the Opposite Party had stated that there is some default in the exchange as alleged by the complainant. The complainant went on using the Broadband Internet Connection facility on the aforesaid telephone connection till 15.7.2014, but he did not make the payment of usage charges. So, the Broadband Internet Connection of the complainant was disconnected due to non payment (DDNP) on 15.7.2014 of the bills dated 4.5.2014 (Ex.R7), 4.6.2014 (Ex.R8), 5.7.2014 (Ex.R9), 5.8.2014 Ex.R10) worth Rs.3205.04. The detail of the using the Broadband Internet Connection by the complainant Ex.R6 shows that the complainant had been using the Broadband Internet Connection facility on this telephone connection for the months of April 2014, May 2014, June 2014, July 2014 and the complainant was issued bills, but he did not make the payment. As such, his Broadband Internet Connection was disconnected due to non payment of the bill, on 15.7.2014, rather a sum of Rs. 3205.04 is due payable by the complainant against the aforesaid telephone connection for using Broadband Internet Connection facility and the complainant is liable to pay the aforesaid amount legally. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- From the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant got installed landline telephone connection bearing No.01853-221889 from Opposite Party at his residence at village: Danial, Tehsil: Baba Bakala, District Amritsar and he also got installed Broad Band Internet Connection facility on this telephone from the Opposite Party. Complainant submitted that Broad Band Internet Connection facility is not functioning on his aforesaid telephone connection since April, 2014 and in this regard, he lodged complaints with the Opposite Party telephonically, details of which are given on the Idea Bill Ex.C3. The complainant also filed application on 25.6.2014 received by the Opposite Party on 26.6.2014 Ex.C1, in which the complainant submitted that as his Broad Band Internet Connection is not functioning, so the same be disconnected. Whereas the details of the Broad Band Internet Connection of the complainant Ex.R6 produced by the Opposite Party fully proves that the Broad Band Internet Connection on the aforesaid telephone connection of the complainant continued working and the complainant has been using the said facility and had been continuously using the same till July, 2014. Not only this, Opposite Party has also issued bill dated 4.5.2014 Ex.R7 against which the complainant also paid a sum of Rs.915/-. Opposite Party issued another bill dated 4.6.2014 Ex.R8 against which the complainant also paid Rs.920/-. If the complainant was not using the Broad Band Internet Connection facility at his aforesaid telephone connection, why he had paid these bills of May and June, 2014. However, thereafter the complainant did not make the payment against the bill dated 5.7.2014 Ex.R9 as well as against the bill dated 4.8.2014 Ex.R10 and as per the account of the Opposite Party, pertaining to the Broad Band Internet Connection of the complainant, a sum of Rs.3205.04 paisa was due payable by the complainant as usage charges of Broad Band Internet Connection facility on his aforesaid telephone connection. All this shows that the complainant is defaulter and the Opposite Party was justified in disconnecting the aforesaid Broad Band Internet Connection facility of the complainant on 15.7.2014.
- Consequently we hold that the complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- Resultantly the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 19-08-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
