| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 35 of 05-02-2020 Decided on : 20-05-2022 Rahul Singla S/o Sh. Purshotam Singla R/o Ward No. 8, Bholu M.C. Wali Gali, Mall Road, Goniana Mandi, Bathinda C/o Rahul Trading Company, Dana Mandi, Near O.B.C. Bank, Goniana Mandi, Bathinda 151 001. ........Complainant Versus Connect Broadband C/o Quadrant Televenture Ltd., (Formerly known as HFCL infortel Ltd., ) 2nd Floor, Above HDFC Life, Opposite Indusind Bank, Near State Bank of India, Guru Kashi Marg, G.T. Road, Bathinda 151 001. Quadrant Televenture Ltd., (Formerly known as HFCL Infortel Ltd) B-71, Phase VIII, Industrial Focal Point, Mohali, Cooperative Office 160 055. (deleted vide order dated 6-2-2020). Quadrant Televentures Ltd., (Formerly known as HFCL Infotel Ltd., Autocare Compound, Adalat Road, Aurangabad Maharashtra, Registered Office – 431 005.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Ashu Bansal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Vikas Singla ,Advocate, for OPs No. 1 & 3. OP No. 2 deleted. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Rahul Singla (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Connect Broadband and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that opposite party No. 1 approached the complainant and offered Broadband Connection of Connect Company with unlimited Plan for Rs 199/- exclusive GST tax@I8% per month for lifetime. Complainant purchased and got installed said broadband Connection with unlimited Plan, with connect broadband connection No. 0164-5005474. It is alleged that bill of the said broadband connection was to be generated on 16th day of every month and delivered at registered mobile No.70098-42616 of the complainant through text message. Bill was to be paid in next 10-12 days, and If not paid within the said period, then the complainant was liable to pay penalty to the tune of Rs.50/- of such month and so on. The complainant alleged that on 17th of January,2020, he checked his messages and found that basic bill generated by opposite parties was of Rs 249/- and GST @18% was charged extra. The complainant verified and asked the opposite parties that his unlimited broadband connection is of Rs.199/- and not of Rs.249/- per month and then opposite parties told the complainant that his Plan has now been changed and increased from Rs. 199/- to Rs. 249/- excluding GST and further asked the complainant to pay the same as complainant has no other option. It is also alleged that the opposite parties have increased the bill of broadband connection of the complainant from Rs. 199/- to Rs.249/-excluding GST, without any prior intimation to the complainant. Neither a phone call was made nor a text message was sent by the opposite parties to the complainant regarding the same. The opposite parties increased the bill dated 16-Dec-19 to 15-Jan-20 of the complainant without the consent of the complainant and without knowing the fact whether complainant is willing to get the plan changed or not. It is also alleged that on 19th January,2020, complainant made the payment of total bill amount of Rs.294/- including GST, through his Netbanking in MyConnect application of opposite party No. 1 to avoid penalty. The opposite parties have increased/changed the billing plan without any reason with malafide intention. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay the total principle and refund a sum of Rs 50/- with GST, paid by complainant, with interst @18% p.a. from 21st of January till the date and also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- compensation for harassment and and a sum of Rs .50,000/- in the consumer Legal Aid Account besides Rs .11000/- as litigation expenses. On the statement of learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No. 2 was deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 6-2-2020. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written reply raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. That the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. That the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct, admission, ommission, acquiescence and waiver. That the complainant does not come within the definition of consumer. That the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and that the complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. On merits, the opposite parties have admitted that complainant had obtained Broadband connection of connect company from opposite party No.1 with unlimited plan for Rs.199/- exclusive GST tax @ 18% per month, but denied that the said connection was provided by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant for lifetime. The opposite parties admitted that opposite party No.1 sent bill to the complainant in January, 2020 @ Rs.249/- + 18% GST. It has been pleaded that earlier unlimited plan of Rs.199/- per month was left/closed by opposite party No. 1 after a public notice in various newspapers dated 27.12.2019 including The Pioneer, Dainik Savera Times, Rozana Spokesman etc., and all the customers of the opposite party No.1 were fully aware much prior to January, 2020 that the said plan of Rs.199/- is going to be closed and were also free to leave opposite party No. 1, if they were not comfortable with the minimum plan of Rs.249/- per month + GST @ 18% per annum, but the complainant did not opt to leave the said connection of opposite party No.1 rather continued enjoying the services and even after receiving the said bill on 17-1-2020 @Rs. 249/- per month + 18% GST. The complainant never left the connection of opposite party No. 1 and never requested to disconnect the connection. The opposite parties have pleaded that the old Plan of Rs.199/- is no more in existence and the same was closed by opposite party No.1 after public notice in various newspapers dated 27.12.2019 including The Pioneer, Dainik Savera Times, Rozama Spokesman etc. and despite that the complainant never requested the opposite party No. 1 to disconnect the connection or that he does not want to enjoy the said connection with the minimum plan of Rs.249/ per month + GST and as such the complainant is estopped from seeking the refund of any amount from opposite party No. 1. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence documents (Ex.C-1 to Ex. C-4) and affidavit of complainant (Ex. C-5). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikram Katia (Ex. OP-1/1) and documents (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/4). The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The main dispute between the parties is that the opposite parties changed the connect broadband connection plan of complainant from Rs. 199/- including 18% GST to Rs. 249/- excluive 18% GST without consent of complainant. The version of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not obtained his consent before changing the plan and suddenly sent revised bill to him. To avoid penalty, under compelled circumstances, complainant paid the bill of revised plan to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have pleaded that old plan of Rs. 199/- was closed by opposite party No.1 after public notice in various newspapers dated 27.12.2019 including The Pioneer, Dainik Savera Times, Rozana Spokesman etc., and despite that the complainant never requested the opposite party No. 1 to disconnect the connection, rather continued enjoying the service and even after receiving bill on 17-1-2020 @ Rs. 249/- per month + 18% GST, never left the connection and never requested to disconnect the connection. A perusal of file reveals that the opposite parties have not placed on file any document to show that at the time of providing connection in question to complainant any agreement was executed between the parties that the plan can be changed/revised at any stage without consent of consumer. The opposite parties have not obtained any consent of the complainant to revise his plan. The opposite parties have not even intimated the complainant by sending text message regarding change of plan on his registered mobile number. The complainant came to know about his revised plan when he received bill in January, 2020. The opposite parties have placed on file news paper cuttings (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/4) to prove that before change of plan, news regarding this was published in news papers. Even a perusal of these documents, does not reveal that which are those selected plans of which monthly tariff is to be increased. Moreover, the opposite parties is not a government body which published news to make aware of general public regarding any issue. The opposite parties is a private company and is providing service to its consumers/customers under some terms and conditions after charging service charges. Thus, change of plan of broadband connection of complainant to higher charges without obtaining consent of complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Resultantly, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation (which also includes the amount charged in excess by opposite parties on account of revised plan) against opposite parties No. 1 & 3. The opposite parties are at liberty to continue with the new/revised plan only after obtaining consent of the complainant and in case of non-consent of the complainant, opposite parties No. 1 & 3 can act accordingly as per law. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 20-5-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
