DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No. 825 of 2016                                         Date of institution:  19.12.2016                                         Date of decision   :  17.10.2017

Bhupal Singh, SCF 54, Cabin No.3, Top Floor, Phase-6, Mohali 160055.

                             ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Connect Broadband Quardant Televentures Ltd. (Formerly known as HFCL Infotel Ltd.), through authorised signatory, B-71, Phase-VII, Industrial Area, Focal Point, Mohali 160055.

                                                       ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of   

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Manoj Kumar Rohilla, cl. for the complainant.

                None for the OP.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Bhupal Singh has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant had taken internet plan namely Bolt 1299 4 mb from the OP at a monthly rent of Rs.1299/- which includes unlimited internet data with unlimited local and STD calling facility. The complainant has also opted for Number +91 172 5099778. Cheque of payment of Rs.1299/- was issued by the complainant to Mr. Kailash on the same day. The representative of the OP installed modem at the office of the complainant on 16.10.2016 and started the internet service facility on 19.10.2016 but was not allotted landline number and neither any calling facility was provided, as per the commitment and plan.   The complainant requested the OP many a times to provide calling facility as he was to make calls by using other option which was costly for him. After few days, the internet facility provided was disconnected. The complainant immediately approached the OP and then the internet facility was restored. However, after some days a technical person of the OP came to the complainant and again disconnected the internet instead of providing landline phone facility. The complainant asked the person about disconnection who explained that he was allotted a wrong port and told that if the available port gets free only then he would be provided internet facility.  The complainant made many telephonic requests to the OP at its customer care number and its representatives namely Mr. Kailash, Mr. Vinod, Mr. Yuvraj who all assured that his service would be activated soon.  Then the complainant contacted Mr. Rajesh Garg, Customer Relation Head of the OP. Thereafter, only internet facility was restored and landline facility with choice number was not provided.  The complainant received bill for the period 17.10.2016 to 31.10.2016 for Rs.661/- which was for internet and landline number whereas the landline service has not been provided to the complainant. After receipt of the bill, the complainant sent e-mail to the OP for landline phone with choice number and to adjust/revise/waive off the bill as he has not received the proper services. In reply to the e-mail the OP stated that ‘disconnection of complainant connect number has been processed and respondent company cannot make any adjustments after process of disconnection.  After receipt of this reply and apprehending disconnection of his internet connection, the complainant paid the bill on 30.11.2016  and also requested the OP telephonically not to send him any further combined bill. However, the complainant again received bill for Rs.1543/- for the month of November without providing him landline service.  On 14.12.2016 the internet facility of the complainant was again disconnected without any reason. The OP has failed to provide committed facility/service as it has not provided landline facility to the complainant with his choice number.  Hence, the complainant has sought direction to the OP to refund him all the amounts paid till today i.e. Rs.1250/- paid at the time of getting connection and Rs.700/- paid towards bill amount alongwith compensation and litigation charges. Or in the alternative direct to the OP to provide him service according to plan with refund of amount of first bill and Rs.65,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, daily loss in social network and mental agony etc. and Rs.8,000/- as litigation expenses.  The complainant has sought further direction to the OP not to send him combined bill till he gets the combined facility.

3.             The OP could not file the reply within the period stipulated  and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.12.2015 in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.,  the right of the OP to file written statement was stuck off.

4.             In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of opted plan Ex.C-1; bill Ex.C-2; E-mail Ex.C-3;  payment receipt Ex.C-4 and bill Ex.C-5. In rebuttal, the evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Shri Ashwinder Singh Bhangu, Deputy Manager Legal Ex.OP-1/1 and copy of special power of attorney Ex.OP-1 and subscriber detail Ex.OP-2.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has opted for Bolt 1299 plan with unlimited free Data Transfer and Limited local and STD Calls. He has argued that the OP has only provided internet facility to the complainant but has not provided the landline facility to the complainant. The complainant vide his request Ex.C-3 dated 22.11.2016 requested the OP to provide him the landline facility  but without providing him the committed landline facility, the OP sent him bill for combined facilities i.e. internet and landline which act per se is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Learned counsel has further submitted that now the complainant do not require the services of the OP as he is now getting services from other company.  Learned counsel has thus prayed for allowing the complaint.

6.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the complainant as well as heard learned counsel for the complainant. Neither anybody appeared on behalf of the OP for addressing oral arguments nor any written arguments filed on behalf of the OP.  The complainant has opted for Bolt 1299 Plan and as per Ex.C-1 Unlimited Free Data Transfer and Unlimited Local and STD Calls were to be provided by the OP under this opted plan.  However, only internet facility was provided to the complainant and landline facility was not provided to him. The complainant vide his request Ex.C-3 dated 22.11.2016 requested the OP to provide him the internet and landline facility but the OP failed to act upon the request of the OP. The OP again sent bill Ex.C-5 for combined facilities.   Although, the OP has failed to file its written version, but it has led evidence. The OP has proved document Ex.OP-2 subscriber details which itself proves that the complainant has opted for Bolt 1299 4 Mb plan.  The conjoint reading of Ex.C-1 produced by the complainant and Ex.OP-2 produced by the OP shows that the complainant was to get the services under the Bolt 1299 4 Mb Plan.  Thus, non provision of Unlimited local and STD calls is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that as the complainant was not provided the committed services, thus he is now availing services from other company and the amount paid by him may be got refunded to the complainant.  However, this plea of the complainant cannot be accepted as the OP has installed the connection at the premises of the complainant but has failed to provide him the landline facility alongwith the internet facility.  Thus, the OP can only be held liable for deficiency in service in not providing the landline facility to the complainant.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that the complainant is entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) for  account of mental agony, harassment and  litigation cost on account of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.            

                The OP is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.

                The order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 17.10.2017

                                              (A.P.S.Rajput)
 President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member