Haryana

Kaithal

13/17A

Mahesh Kumar Mangal - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSNL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Mukesh Nirwani

21 Aug 2017

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 13/17A
 
1. Mahesh Kumar Mangal
Kaithal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. BSNL
Kaithal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Jagmal Singh PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Rajbir Singh MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Harisha MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Sh.Mukesh Nirwani, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Sh.Om Parkash, Advocate
Dated : 21 Aug 2017
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.13/A/2017.

Date of instt.: 09.01.2017. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 28.08.2017.

Mahesh Kumar Mangal Advocate son of Seth Kapoor Chand, District Court Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.     

                                        Versus

  1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (B.S.N.L.) through its S.D.O., Kaithal.
  2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (B.S.N.L.) through its Assistant General Manager, Secondary Switching Area (S.S.A.), Karnal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

 

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

                       

         

Present :        Complainant in person.

Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.

 

                 

                       ORDER

 

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

 

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is having a mobile connection No.94164-33682 and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the complainant received the bill for a sum of Rs.5651/- from the Ops and on enquiry, he came to know that the Ops added the bill of GPRS i.e. Internet without use of the complainant in the month of December, 2016.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops to deduct the internet/GPRS bill from the account of complainant but the Ops disconnected the connection of complainant.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant had applied for activation of GRPS/Internet connection on his mobile number 9416033682 and the service was activated on 09.11.2016; that in the month of November and December, 2016 the complainant had used the GPRS/Internet on his mobile; that the complainant had deposited the bill of November, 2016 amounting to Rs.1297/- having 1.81 GB data/GPRS usage; that in the month of December, 2016 the data/GPRS usage are 3.89 GB against which the bill amounting to Rs.5651/- was issued.  At the time of issue of bill for the month of December, 2016, due to technical problem in bill centre, the rebate for 2 GB GPRS/data was not given to the complainant.  The rebate of Rs.2590/- has been given to the complainant and a corrected bill has been issued to the complainant amounting to Rs.3061/-.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and closed evidence on 27.04.2017.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed evidence on 07.06.2017.   

4.     We have heard both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.     According to the Ops, they have already given a rebate of Rs.2950/- from the bill amounting to Rs.5651/- and a corrected bill amounting to Rs.3061/- has been issued to the complainant.  Without going into the controversy of the case, the complainant stated that the Ops are ready to deduct Rs.500/- more from the amount of the bill i.e. Rs.3061/- and the complainant stated that this amount is very less.  The Ops have not denied the same.  In these circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice will be met if Rs.1,000/- is deducted from the bill amounting to Rs.3,061/-. 

6.     Thus, in view of the above, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to give a rebate of Rs.1,000/- from the amount of Rs.3,061/- of the bill in question.  No order as to costs.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.28.08.2017.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

 

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.

 

                                                               

                                         

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jagmal Singh]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Rajbir Singh]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MS. Harisha]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.