DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 08 of 03-01-2008<br /> Decided on : 29-02-2008 <br /> <br /> Rakesh Singla S/o Sat Pal, 3083 Gali No. 6, Power House Road, Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> BSNL through its General Manager (Telecom), Bharat Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Lakhbir singh, President<br /> Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. M.L. Sharma, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBHIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant was holder of telephone connection No. 2224963 of BSNL and is also having Internet Connection Broad Band plan of Rs. 250/- per month installed in his house. His daughter is living in Algeria. He has to use Internet more often. In the month of October, 2007 several advertisements and pamphlets were issued by the opposite party advertising the plan of Rs. 900/- wherein no extra payment has to be made by user of this plan of Internet meaning thereby that subscriber can use unlimited Internet under this plan and has to make monthly payment of Rs. 900/- only. On 6.11.07, he had paid visit to the office of the opposite party and opted to convert his Internet plan of Rs. 250/- into plan of Rs. 900/- per month. Accordingly, opposite party issued demand note for the same. Payment of Rs. 900/- was deposited by him on 6.11.07 vide receipt No. 34201375. One Mr. Sodhi who had dealings with him had told him after seeing the receipt of Rs. 900/- that he can use unlimited Internet from that day onwards. On his assurance, he had started using Internet connection in his house. All of a sudden bill dated 5.12.07 amounting to Rs. 18,678/- wherein charges for usage of Broad Band are Rs. 16,312/- was received. Letter dated 13.12.07 was sent by him to the opposite party requesting to quash the charges of Rs. 16,312/- alongwith taxes but its officials told him that plan of Rs. 900/- could not be activated in their system and the same was started on 1.12.07 as per billing cycle. He assails that demand of Rs. 16,312/- and that of taxes of Rs. 2055/- as illegal, null and void on the ground that at the time of issuance of the receipt of Rs. 900/- he was not told that his plan of Rs. 900/- would be activated on 1.12.07 nor mention was made about it on the demand note and receipt. Had this fact been brought to his notice, he would not have used unlimited Internet. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to quash the bill dated 5.12.07 to the extent of Broad Band expenses and taxes thereon; pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental tension and Rs. 5500/- as cost of litigation.<br /> 2. Opposite party filed its version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; it is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; complaint is false and vexatious; complainant has not come with clean hands and he cannot take benefit of his own wrong. They admit that complainant is holder of telephone connection No. 2224963 and was using Internet connection Broad Band plan of Rs.250/- per month installed at his house. General public was informed about the new plan and facility of conversion of H 250 plan into H 900 plan. A sum of 900/- was deposited by him as security. No promise was made to him by any of its employees. No one had clarified that he can use unlimited Internet from the date of payment. Whenever a subscriber applies for conversion of Broad Band plan in between the month, the same is effective from the first day of next month as per provisions of DOT SOFT/system. Its working is fully computerised. Whenever security is deposited for conversion of plan H 250 to H 900 in between the month, the system takes it automatically on the last date of month applied and becomes effective from the first day of the next month. Its billing cycle for Internet use is from first of month to last day of the month. Monthly rent charged by it in the month of November is Rs. 250/- and not Rs. 900/- which itself shows that plan of complainant was converted from first of December, 2007 and not from the day of application for conversion from H 250 to H 900. Billing cycle was fully explained to the complainant. However on his request, objection/protest raised by him was duly examined and investigated. No defect was found in the bill. Bill issued to him is for Rs. 18,678/- . Total Broad Band used from 1.11.07 to 30.11.07 was 18871 MB out of which 1254 MB usage is free. Thus net use comes out to 17847 MB @ Rs. 0.90 per MB. Hence charges for the month of November,2007 come to Rs. 16062/- + Rs. 250/- i.e. rent + taxes. Total Broad Band charges for the month of November, 2007 are Rs. 16,312/-. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of letter dated 13.12.07 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of bill (Ex. C-3), photocopy of demand note (Ex. C-4) and photocopy of receipt (Ex. C-5).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Mohinder Pal, D.E. Phone (Legal) has been tendered into evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Some facts are not in dispute in this case. They are that previously complainant was having Internet Broad Band plan of Rs.250/- per month. Subsequently he opted another plan i.e. plan of Rs. 900/- per month. Demand note was issued to him on 6.11.07. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 900/- was deposited by him with the opposite party on 6.11.07 and copy of the receipt is Ex. C-5.<br /> 7. Material question for determination is as to whether complainant's previous Broad Band plan of Rs. 250/- per month stood converted into plan H-900 w.e.f. 6.11.07. Complainant claims that he was apprised by one Mr. Sodhi an official of the opposite party that he can use unlimited Internet from that day i.e 6.11.07 and accordingly he started using it. For this, there is bald affidavit of the complainant. Complainant has not disclosed the full name of Mr. Sodhi who had allegedly intimated him that he can use unlimited Internet from 6.11.07 onwards. He has neither been examined nor his affidavit has been placed and proved on record. It being so, version of the complainant on this aspect of the matter has not gone beyond the stage of averment. <br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is nothing in the demand note and the receipt, copies of which are Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5 that the new plan adopted by the complainant was to become effective from 1.12.07. This submission cannot be given any weight. No doubt there is no note on these documents to this effect. On the other hand, there is nothing in them that plan of Rs. 900/- was to become effective from 6.11.07 onwards. So far as the affidavit of the complainant is concerned, it stands amply rebutted with the affidavit of Sh. Mohinder Pal, D.E. Phone (Legal) which has been given by him in the capacity of public servant. All the official acts performed by the public servants in the discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct. In the affidavit Ex. R-1, he has reiterated the version of the opposite party. Official function of the opposite party is fully computerised. Affidavit Ex. R-1 makes it clear that when security is deposited for conversion of plan in between the month, the system takes it automatically on the last date of month applied and is effective w.e.f. first day of the next month. Moreover, billing cycle of the opposite party for Internet use is from first of the month to last date of the month. Had the version of the complainant been true, opposite party would have charged monthly rent as per plan of Rs. 900/- for November, 2007. Rent for November, 2007 has been charged as per plan of Rs. 250/- per month. Details of the Broad Band used in the Month of November, 2007 have been given by the opposite party in the reply of the complaint as well as in the affidavit Ex. R-1. When they are considered, there is justification for claiming the amount. Even otherwise complainant does not assail the bill on the ground that it is excessive. Since Broad Band plan of Rs. 900/- was to become effective from 1.12.07 as per provisions of DOT SOFT/system, complainant cannot avail this plan from 6.11.07 on which date a sum of Rs. 900/- was deposited by him particularly when the agreement to this effect between him and the opposite party is lacking.<br /> 9. In the premises written above, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is proved. Complainant is liable to pay the charges. Complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced : (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> 29-02-2008 President<br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />