BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 409 of 2015
Date of Institution: 24.06.2015
Date of Decision: 04.05.2016
Ved Parkash Vohra son of Sh.Kishan Chand Vohra, aged 65 years, resident of House No. 54, Gali No.5, New Tikona Park, Sunder Nagar, Amritsar.
Complainant
Versus
- Connect Care, M/s.Quadrant Televentures Ltd.B-71, Industrial Area Phase-7, Mohali.
- Sh.Amit Bhatt, Operation Head, Connect Care, Zonal Office S.C.O. No.5, Distt.Shopping Complex, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Market, Amritsar.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: In person.
For the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2: Sh.Mohan Arora, Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Ved Parkash Vohra has brought the instant complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that in the month of August, 2008 the complainant took Net Work connection bearing account No. 5017549 under Connection Plan 444 DSL COMBO, from the Opposite Parties and he has been paying the bills regularly, but the services of Opposite Parties were deficient. The complainant used to lodge the complaint in this regard with Opposite Parties, but usually, the grievances of the complainant were not redressed in time and in this regard, the complainant suffered mental tension. Complainant further submitted that the Opposite Parties suo moto started changing the rent plan i.e. in the August 2013 it was changed from Rs.444/- to Rs.515/-, in the month of February 2014, it was changed from Rs.515/- to Rs.570/- and in the month of August 2014 it was changed from 570/- to Rs.649/- without the consent of the complainant, but however, all the times, the complainant paid the bills under protest. On all the occasions, the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to correct the bill plan, but the Opposite Parties told the complainant that the request of the complainant has been sent to their higher authorities. As and when, the company changes the bill plan, the excess amount paid will be adjusted in the next bills of the complainant. At last, the complainant made a request to the Opposite Parties to disconnect his connection, but the Opposite Parties were not ready to listen the complainant on one pretext or the other and they did not disconnect his connection. On 4.4.2015 the complainant sent registered letter to Opposite Party No.2 requesting them to disconnect his connection, but the Opposite Parties made threats to the complainant to pay the bills. The complainant is a senior citizen. Due to the illegal and wrongful acts of the opposite parties, complainant suffered mental tension and harassment at the hands of the opposite parties. The complainant has prayed for refund of the excess amount paid i.e. Rs.1797/-+14% on account service tax. Besides this, the complainant has also prayed for restraining the Opposite Parties from raising the demand of Rs.3428/-. A prayer for grant of compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/- as well as Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses has also been made. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is legally not maintainable as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant against the Opposite Parties; that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant to get undue advantage from the Opposite Parties; that the complainant has complainant has created a false story in his complaint to mislead this Forum by concocting and distorting the facts and circumstances of the present case; that the false complaint has been filed by the complainant by alleging false allegations. The answering Opposite Parties have demanded legal and valid amount from the complainant, which was due towards the complainant for the outstanding amount of the telephone connection installed in his name. The complainant had never requested for disconnection of the telephone connection; that the present complaint is counter blast to the claim of the Opposite Parties for the recovery of balance outstanding amount, which the complainant has not paid so far to the Opposite Parties. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint are denied. Admittedly, the internet connection bearing No. 5017549 was installed by ops in the name of c under plan DSL 444. It is stoutly denied that the complainant paid the bills in time. It is further denied that the complainant has to lodge complaints time and again and it is further denied that Opposite Parties did not remove the defect occurred to the connection. No such complaint has ever been moved by the complainant nor any detail has been provided by the complainant in the present complaint, but however, the rental plan was enhanced by the Opposite Parties and information was duly given to the complainant vide monthly bill. Moreover, as per the rules and regulations, the company could increase the rental according to the service provided to the customer. In the present case, when in the year 2008 the connection was got installed in the premises of the complainant, the Opposite Parties/ company provided internet speed to the complainant @ 256 kbps, but with the passage of time better service had been provided by the company to its customers and company had charged according to the better services from the complainant. But however, during each time, no written complaint has ever been moved by the complainant protesting the increase in the monthly rental. It is denied that the complainant had paid the bills every time under protest, no such written letter/ complaint has been given by the customer to the Opposite Parties. The complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.1797/-+ 14% on account of service tax amount. The Opposite Parties had rightly received the amount from the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has rightly demanded Rs.3428/- from the complainant, which the Opposite Parties are legally entitled to recover from the complainant. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant made into the witness box as his own witness and filed duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C5, copy of application dated 14.10.2014 Ex.C5, copy of application dated 30.10.2014 Ex.C7, copy of application dated 12.11.2014 Ex.C8, copies of applications Ex.C9 to Ex.C11, copy of bill dated 1.2.2015 Ex.C12, photographs Ex.C13 and Ex.C14, copy of bill Ex.C15, affidavit of Sh.D.V.Gupta Ex.C16, copies of letters Ex.C17 to Ex.C19, copy of subscriber agreement form Ex.C20, copies of letters Ex.C21 to Ex.C23 and closed his evidence.
4. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Ravinder Singh Ex.OP1, copy of account statement Ex.OP2, copies of subscriber declaration form Ex.OP3 and Ex.OP4, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP5, copy of subscriber agreement form Ex.OP6 and closed their evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. It has been vehemently contended by the complainant that he had obtained Net Work Connection bearing account No. 5017549 under Plan 444 DSL COMBO. The complainant has been paying the bills regularly, but the Opposite Parties company had deficient service and the complainant had to lodge complaints time and again, but the Opposite Parties did not take any action on the complaints. It is further case of the complainant that the company started changing the rent plan on its own and in August 2013, it was changed from Rs.444/- to Rs.515/-, in February 2014, from Rs.515/- to Rs.570/- and in August 2014 it was changed from 570/- to Rs.649/- without the consent of the complainant and the complainant used to deposit the bills under protest. The complainant requested the Opposite Parties to correct the bill plan, but the Opposite Parties told the complainant that the request of the complainant has been sent to the higher authorities and the company will change the plan automatically and the excessive amount, if any, shall be adjusted in the coming bills. The Opposite Parties, however received the application (s) in this regard from the complainant, but refused to give signatures in token of receipt of the application. In October, 2014 the company told the complainant that the connection has not been disconnected because the repair work of internet was in progress. When the computer net work was set right, his application shall be forwarded. As a matter of fact, the company did not disconnect the connection of the complainant, rather on 30.10.2014 and 12.11.2014 when the complainant went to deposit the instrument/ modem, he was told that payment of the next bill may be made. When the complainant told them that he had already made the payment in October, 2014 of bill and after that he did not use the internet, the Opposite Parties did not listen to him. Opposite Parties told the complainant that entire payment shall have to be made at new rate, although he has not been using the internet since 10/2014. It is the case of the complainant that the Opposite Parties have been increasing the rental charges on its own and a sum of Rs.1797/-+14% on account service tax be refunded and the company has also sent a bill for Rs.3428/- and said bill is not payable by the complainant because the complainant had already deposited the last bill in October, 2014, but the Opposite Parties are issuing the wrong bills for payment to the complainant and have been harassing him. The complainant has also prayed for litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/- and Rs.20000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and agony. It is the case of the complainant that the Opposite Parties are deficient in service and they have been harassing the senior citizen i.e. complainant without any rhyme or reason. The Opposite Parties could neither enhance the rent nor it could collect any dues, etc, after October, 2014 because the complainant had applied for disconnection of the net work vide application in June, 2014. His application for disconnection of the net work remained pending with the Opposite Parties without any rhyme or reason. As such, the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for.
7. However, from the appreciation of the evidence on record and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that Opposite Parties could enhance the rental charges as per Subscriber Agreement Form, copy whereof accounts for Ex.C20 which clearly says that “Connect is entitled to change, vary, add and withdraw any service/ supplementary service and/ or to vary its charges relating thereto at any time, in its sole discretion and/ or under TRAI regulations and guidelines.” Since the complainant is bound by terms and conditions of the agreement, therefore, the company was within its authority and power to change the plan after every 6 months and in the exercise of that power, the company has been changing the plan of the complainant after every 6 months. Even letter Ex.C23 also states that tariff plans being offered have to be for a minimum period of six months. This letter was sent by the Opposite Parties in response to letter sent by Ved Parkash Vohra, complainant regarding request for supply of information under the Provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
8. Further case of the complainant that he has been applying to the Opposite Parties for disconnection of net work and despite various requests made by the complainant, no action was taken, is also without any basis. As a matter of fact, it has been admitted by the complainant in his complaint itself that no receipt as a token of acknowledgement of receipt of the application was obtained by him. The complainant also did not send any such application through postal authority. Copies of such applications which have been produced on record Ex.C6, Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 have been issued to Office Incharge, Connect Care, Batala Road Office, Amritsar which is a franchise of the Opposite Parties for collecting the rental charges, etc. Even these applications do not bear the signatures of any officials of the Opposite Parties as token of receipt of these applications. The other alleged applications, copies whereof are Ex.C9 to Ex.C11, shows that those were addressed to Sh.Amit Bhatt, Operation Head, Office Connect Care, Zonal Office, Amritsar which are dated 4.4.2015. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that application of the complainant for disconnecting of the net work connection which have been received by the Opposite Parties & modem was also handed over to them by the complainant. As a matter of fact, no disconnection could be made earlier, because no request in writing for disconnection was made to rightful authorities i.e. Opposite Parties. In such a situation, the Opposite Parties could not disconnect the net work of the complainant. As such, Opposite Parties are entitled to receive the rental or the internet connection until the process of disconnection was completed. It is the case of the complainant that modem/ instrument, etc. was taken back by the Opposite Parties on 13.6.2015. Consequently, the Opposite Parties were entitled to receive the outstanding amount of bills/ rental charges, etc. from the complainant up till 13.6.2015 and therefore, the request of the complainant that the Opposite Parties were legally obliged to refund the amount of rent @ Rs. 1797/- + 14% as service tax or that bill for payment of Rs.3428/- was not payable by the complainant, are not tenable. Since the complaint has no force, therefore, the relief of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/- and compensation amounting to Rs.20000/- is also not available to the complainant. The complaint is false and frivolous and as such, the same is ordered to be dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 04.05.2016. (S.S.Panesar) President
hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
