Complainant Sachin Gupta has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.85,000/- in the shape of damages because of illegal tension, harassment and misguiding him and loss of business, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he has got a broadband cum telephonic connection from the opposite party no.3 vide telephonic and broadband connection no.01874-503610, for commercial use and his livelihood and his family members. He has no other source of income except this shop and he has also no employee at his shop. He is using the services of the phone as well as Broadband connection of the above said company and is paying the bills regularly since long. He paid lastly bill as his regular routine on 23.08.2016  amount of Rs.1265/- as full settlement vide receipt no.126343. There was no any fault or issue pending regarding any payment in between the parties till 31.08.2016. The next bill was generated on 1.09.2016 vide bill no.35646802  and the abovesaid bill amount of Rs.1265/- was adjusted in that bill and further a bill with payment outstanding of Rs.2407/- with the current charges Rs.1044.70 with the total amount of Rs.3452/- and payable after due date i.e. Rs.3602/- which is illegal one. An amount of Rs.150/- was also again deposited on 09.09.2016 as directed by the employee of the opposite party no.3 which is also adjusted in the bill account and SMS regarding the same has been also received by him. On 10 September 2016, the opposite party no.3 had disconnected the connection and stopped the outgoing calls of the abovesaid connection as well as the Broadband connection of the Internet of the abovesaid connection, without any reason and rhyme and with his illegal command and without informing him who has paid upto date bill  on 23.08.2016 and till from date 10.09.2016 the services are withdrawn by the opposite party, whether Rs.150/- was deposited just 09.09.2016 by him to the company. He is in business of advertising and advertising material and as such his business is totally fell down on the ground which depends upon the internet connection as well as on the telephonic calls. He visited the opposite party no.3 for his genuine claim but all in vain. He has suffered mental agony, harassment act and omission due to negligence, irresponsible behaviour and conduct of the opposite parties.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the present complaint is barred by law as it is the second complaint filed by the complainant before this Hon’ble Forum; the complaint is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant against opposite parties to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come with the clean hands before this Hon’ble Forum and has suppressed the relevant material facts alongwith other allegations have been taken. On merits, it was admitted that telephone connection no.01874-503610 was got installed by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 in business premises of the complainant for commercial use situated at near Krishna Mandir, Sangalpura Road, Gurdaspur. The complainant had paid amount of Rs.1265/- by way of cheque to the opposite party no.3 who had issued receipt to the complainant. For the period w.e.f. 01.04.2016 to 30.4.2016, bill of Rs.905.69 was due towards complainant but same was not paid by the complainant and then bill for period 01.05.2016 to 31.5.2016 was issued for Rs.1845.32 which was also not paid by the complainant and then bill for the period of  01.06.2016 to 30.06.2016 of Rs.2833.67 was issued but not paid by the complainant and then bill for the period 01.07.2016 to 31.7.2016 for Rs.3822.02 was issued but not paid by the complainant and then bill for the period 01.08.2016 to 31.08.2016 of Rs.2601.72 was issued but out of said amount complainant had paid only amount of Rs.1265/- to the opposite party no.3 and there was outstanding amount due towards complainant and at that time due to outstanding amount, connection of the complainant was not restored. Accordingly bill for the period from 01.09.2016 to 30.9.2016 was issued to the complainant and then with malafide intention complainant had filed earlier complaint no.347/2016 and then opposite parties through its official has approached to the complainant and then compromise was effected between the parties and then waiver of Rs.2886/- was given to the complainant who promised to paid the balance amount of Rs.421/- to the opposite parties and had also agreed to withdraw the complaint  pending before Hon’ble Forum. After settlement, telephone connection was restored and since then complainant is using the connection without making further payment to the opposite parties and now amount of Rs.2254/- is to be paid by the complainant but with malafide intention, complainant is not making payment to the opposite parties and is pressurizing the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 including Ex.C-2/A and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ashwinder Singh Bhangu, Special Power of Attorney Holder Ex.OP1 and of Surjit Singh Manager Ex.OP-8, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-7, Ex.OP-9 and Ex.OP-10 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We observe that the shopkeeper complainant had been quite a long time consumer of the titled opposite party service providers/Connect Broad Band Dealer Office being the valid beneficiary of the Internet cum Telephone # 01874 503610 Commercial Connection in his name, at his Business Shop. He has filed the instant complaint for statutory redressal of his grievance caused on account of abrupt disconnection of service by the OP office on 10.09.2016 in spite of his having paid the consumption bills up to 31.08.2016 besides a sum of Rs 150/- as having paid all over-dues etc up to 09.09.2016. The complainant states to have suffered business-losses on account of the internet disconnection and approached the titled OPs many a times for internet restoration but to no avail and thus prompted the present complaint seeking relief by way of cost, compensation and damages etc. We find somehow the evidentiary affidavit (Ex.Cw1/A) and other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 as produced by the complainant do not satisfactorily and sufficiently prove the complaint-raised allegations/assertions.

7.       However, upon appearance, the OP service providers have duly deposed (Affidavit Ex.OP1) that one consumption bill dated 01.09.2016 for Rs.3,601.72 p has been outstanding against the complainant’s connection A/c that he was liable to pay and as such the connection was righteously disconnected.

8.       We are certainly not convinced as to how a Money Receipt Ex.C4 dated 23.08.2016 for Rs.1265/- can annul the future Bill Ex.C3 dated 01.09.2016 for Rs.3,602/- and also as to how the same can be raised in the light of the above Receipt marked ‘no due pending’. So, we find hue of ambiguity and confusion with the contentions, claims/counter claims of both the sides. We further find that the present complaint was first filed on the same cause of action as CC # 347 of 2016 and subsequently withdrawn on 22.12.2016. Further, we are of the considered opinion that both the litigating sides have not approached the forum with clean hands and open mind and as such the statutory resolve shall not serve the requisite purpose of an amicable settlement. Somehow, we find that the impugned demands by way of claims/counter claims as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the levied charges by the opposite party corporation has not been a matter of routine and also not in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per the Standard Sales & Distribution of Broad Band Internet Rules & Regulations and the details were neither detailed out in the impugned Bill nor any pre-notice was served, as requisite.

9.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is devoid of any statutory consumer grievance/element and as such it shall be in the best interest of the matter in issue to dispose of the same sans resolve but with liberty to both the sides to choose an alternate legal remedy of their own choice and advise. Both the parties shall however bear their own costs, here.

10.      Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record. 

               (Naveen Puri)

                                                                               President   

Announced:                                                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

May,09 2018                                                           Member

*MK*