BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.855 of 2017

Date of Institution: 5.12.2017

Date of Decision: 26.2.2019

Paramjeet Kaur wife of Daljit Singh Sandhu R/o House No. 59-B, Sandhu Colony, B-Block, Gali No. 3, Near Royal Public School, GPO, Amritsar 98760-19591

Complainant

Versus

Manager of Connect Broadband company having its branch office at B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Parshotam Singh, Advocate.

              For Opposite Party: Sh.Mohan Arora, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Charanjit Singh, President

Sh.Anoop Sharma,  Member

Ms.Rachna Arora, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Charanjit Singh, President

1.       Paramjeet Kaur, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that she got installed an internet broadband connection from the opposite party vide account No. 2675917 on telephone No. 0183-5050990 and while installing the same in the house of the complainant, the opposite party assured the complainant that they will provide the proper service to the complainant. The complainant made the payment of the internet bills regularly and there is nothing due towards the complainant. The opposite party has port the internet plan to the another plan whereby changing the package of the scheme from Rs. 799/ to Rs. 999/-  of every month . Infact the complainant never asked the opposite party to change his internet plan to any other plan. The complainant used to pay the payment of the bills to the opposite party from the stipulated date of 13^th of every month, but the opposite party changed the date of paying the payment of bill of the internet from 13^th to 2^nd of every month without informing and without the knowledge of the complainant. The opposite party has started demanding the bill  for the month of September and October 2017 with the excessive amount of Rs. 999/- illegally and also got the internet connection of the complainant disconnected on 12.10.2017. The complainant requested the opposite party many a times that he is ready to pay the bill amount of the previous monthly package rate i.e. Rs. 799/- upto 12.10.2017  which he has used and not the excessive amount so demanded by the opposite, but the opposite party did njot pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The act of the amount clearly amounts to deficiency in service, malpractice and against the natural justice of law. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite party be directed to restore the abovesaid internet connection at the previous package rate   and to receive the payment of the bill, if any with the previous rate ;

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10000/- may also be awarded to the complainant ;

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objection therein that the present complaint is not legally maintainable ; that the present complaint has been filled on the basis of wrong facts as she has concealed true facts from the knowledge of this Forum  as at present a sum of Rs. 2687/- is due towards the complainant which is liable to be recover from the complainant by the opposite party ; that as per TRAI regulations, a telephone company engaged in providing telephone service can change its plan after the expiry of six month from the last rental plan and also as per terms and conditions of the subscriber agreement forms (SAF) duly signed by the complainant also before obtaining the telephone connection, the company can change the plan or other terms of agreement. Moreover, technology is increasing day by day and as such company improves its service and provide better facilities and services to its customers for which they have to change the plan and this information regarding change of plan is to be given to the customer by the company in the monthly bills issued to the customers . In the present case the connection was got installed  in the name of the complainant on 1.7.2015 and plan was  issued to the complainant of Rs. 799/- per month which was changed to Rs. 999/- w.e.f. August/September 2017 and information was duly given to the complainant by way of monthly bills. On merits it was submitted that a sum of Rs. 2687/-is due towards the complainant as per last bill No. 39079944 for  the period 1.10.2017 to 31.10.2017 which includes previous outstanding amount of Rs. 1408/- and Rs. 180/- as per previous bills issued by the company  to the complainant. Remaining pleas taken on merits are similar as were taken by the opposite party in the preliminary objections, as such there is no need to reproduce the same. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       In his bid to prove the case Sh.Parshotam
Singh, Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Sh.Mohan Arora,Adv. counsel for the opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Ashwinder Singh Ex.OP1 and copies of supporting documents Ex.OP2 to Ex. OP4  and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party.

5.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Party and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties.

6.       It has been vehemently contended by the complainant that she got installed an internet broadband connection from the opposite party vide account No. 2675917 on telephone No. 0183-5050990 . It was the case of the complainant that she made the payment of the internet bills regularly and there is nothing due towards the complainant. The opposite party has port the internet plan to the another plan whereby changing the package of the scheme from Rs. 799/ to Rs. 999/-  of every month ,whereas the complainant never asked the opposite party to change his internet plan to any other plan. It was further the case of the complainant  that he  used to pay the payment of the bills to the opposite party from the stipulated date of 13^th of every month, but the opposite party changed the date of paying the payment of bill of the internet from 13^th to 2^nd of every month without informing and without the knowledge of the complainant. The opposite party has started demanding the bill  for the month of September and October 2017 with the excessive amount of Rs. 999/- illegally and also got the internet connection of the complainant disconnected on 12.10.2017. The complainant requested the opposite party many a times that he is ready to pay the bill amount of the previous monthly package rate i.e. Rs. 799/- upto 12.10.2017  which he has used and not the excessive amount so demanded by the opposite, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and has been harassing the complainant.

7.       On the other hand Ld.counsel for the opposite party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the Ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that as per TRAI regulations, a telephone company engaged in providing telephone service can change its plan after the expiry of six month from the last rental plan and also as per terms and conditions of the subscriber agreement forms (SAF) duly signed by the complainant also before obtaining the telephone connection, the company can change the plan or other terms of agreement.. In the present case the connection was got installed  in the name of the complainant on 1.7.2015 and plan was  issued to the complainant of Rs. 799/- per month which was changed to Rs. 999/- w.e.f. August/September 2017 and information was duly given to the complainant by way of monthly bills. On merits it was submitted that a sum of Rs. 2687/-is due towards the complainant as per last bill No. 39079944 for  the period 1.10.2017 to 31.10.2017 which includes previous outstanding amount of Rs. 1408/- and Rs. 180/- as per previous bills issued by the company  to the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

8.       But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case the case of the complainant that opposite party of its own has got changed the plan from Rs. 799/- to Rs. 999/- w.e.f. August/September 2017 and also changed the date of payment of bill which was 13^th of every month to 2^nd of every month without information and without the knowledge of the complainant. In this regard the plea of the opposite party is that as per TRAI regulations, a telephone company engaged in providing telephone service can change its plan after the expiry of six month from the last rental plan and also as per terms and conditions of the subscriber agreement forms (SAF) duly signed by the complainant also before obtaining the telephone connection, the company can change the plan or other terms of agreement. During arguments Ld.counsel for the complainant has argued that no such terms and conditions were ever supplied to the complainant, as such these are not binding upon the complainant. In the present case, the opposite party has  failed to prove on record that the terms and conditions of the policy were ever supplied to the complainant . Reliance in this connection has been placed upon 2001(1)CPR 93 (Supreme Court) 242 titled as M/s Modern Insulators Ltd Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that clauses which are not explained to complainant are not binding upon the insured and are required to be ignored. Moreover before changing the plan from 799/- to 999/- w.e.f. August/September 2017 no consent of the complainant was ever obtained by the opposite party.  However, the opposite party instead of listening the request of the complainant for reversion of the plan from Rs. 999/- to 799/- disconnected the internet connection of the complainant on 12.10.2017 for no fault of the complainant on the plea that a sum of Rs. 2687/- is due towards the complainant for the period from 1.10.2017 to 31.10.2017  which was not paid by the complainant due to conversion of plan from 799/- to Rs. 999/- and instead of listening the request for reversion of plan got disconnected the internet connection of the complainant .  Moreover as the connection was disconnected by the opposite party on 12.10.2017, as such the demand of bill for the period from 1.10.2017 to 31.10.2017 is not genuine. The said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. As the complainant has been using the internet connection of the opposite party  since 2015 and at no point of time has made any default in making payment of the bills of the internet charges and due to the said act of the opposite party the complainant has been harassed in the hands of the opposite party for which the complainant is entitled to compensation.

9.       Consequently, we allow the complaint and the opposite party is directed to restore the internet connection at the package rate of Rs. 799/- by receiving the payment  of the bill for the period from 1.10.2017 to 12.10.2017 as per previous rate. The opposite party is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- while litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 1000/-. Compliance of the order be made within  a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum.  Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.