Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/358/2016

Krishna Kumar Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

19 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	358 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	23.05.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	19.09.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Krishna Kumar Goel s/o Sh.Naresh Kumar Goel, resident of H.No.2649, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh  

 

            Complainant

Versus

 

General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

   

  Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Complainant in person.

Sh.Parminder Singh, SDE Legal Office of Opposite Party

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                As per the case, the complainant, a B.Tech IT Final Year student having need of internet, got attracted by the advertisement of the OP about combo plan of monthly rental of Rs.799/- unlimited with 2mbps speed upto 20 GB, 512kbps speed after 20GB and unlimited free calling during 9pm to 7am. As such, the complainant on 22.3.2016, as per their plan, deposited Rs.1500/- in cash, with the OP for purchasing of modem and paid Rs.1299/- through cheque No.578329, dated 24.3.2016 for security of modem as well as landline to marketing executing of OP Mr.Rajneesh Sharma, and the same was debited from his account (Ann.A-2).  However, the OP did not install the system and sent a false message on 27.2.2016 on the mobile number of the complainant that broadband connection was installed and activated on his residence, whereas it was not done (Ann.A-3).  Ultimately, the connection was installed on 28.3.2016, but it was not in working order; the telephone set installed was old; wiring was not fitted and speed of internet connection was very slow and it was not as per plan as assured by the OP.  It is averred that on 15.4.2016, the complainant got the message on his mobile that bill of the connection was generated of  Rs.720/-. When the complainant approached the OP, he came to know that the bill period starts from 26.3.2016 and Rs.600/- is for telephone set, whereas the bill period should started from 29.3.2016 and the charges for telephone set should not have been charged because security for the same had already been deposited.  It is also averred that the complainant visited the OP for correction in the bill, but it was not done.  Moreover, in response to a complaint, one Mr.Jagdish of OP visited the residence of complainant on 19.4.2016 and made several cuttings in the wiring of the broadband connection, which made the overall connection unusable. The complainant moved written representation/complaint to the OP on 11.4.2016, which was registered by the OP on 13.5.2016, but still nothing effective was done by the OP.  It is pleaded that the complainant further got message on his mobile that bill of Rs.1520/- is generated for April, which is totally incorrect as the connection is not in proper working condition till the filing of complaint.  It is also pleaded that the complainant did not receive the original hard copy of the bill and received duplicate copy of the bills generated till 16.5.2016.  It is further pleaded that the OP also mentioned wrong cheque number on the duplicate copy of the receipt of payment for the modem as well as security amount.  It is asserted that the OP had disconnected his broadband connection on 18.5.2016 without any intimation. It is also asserted that due to fault and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed the reply and submitted that the complainant applied for landline telephone & combo plan on monthly rental of Rs.799/- on 22.3.2016 and the advice note to install the telephone was issued on 23.3.2016 by the commercial office, which was received in the outdoor section on the same date.  It is also submitted that the telephone No.2630092 was activated on 26.3.2016 and broadband was further activated on 28.3.2016 and the usage chart is Ann.OP-1. It is further submitted that as per the choice of the complainant, new No.2631110 was allotted to him and activated on 2.4.2016 (Ann.OP-2).  It is stated that in view of the headquarter guidelines, telephone with broadband has to be installed within 7 working days from the date of application and in the present case, the telephone was allotted on 26.3.2016 and activated on 28.3.2016 and the broadband was installed on 29.3.2016 i.e. within the parameters of the guidelines and there was no delay in giving the connection.  The deposit of amount, as alleged, has been admitted. It is pleaded that the broadband speed will reduce after the available usage data exhausted and it may be seen from the usage data that the complainant had got the good speed and downloaded various data and used the connection unlimited and even pre-telephone calls in the night.  It is also pleaded that each of billing along with usage data is attached as Ann.OP-3 (consolidated).  It is further pleaded that the complaints of the complainant whenever made were rectified immediately, a copy of the complaint’s book & rectified is attached as Ann.OP-4.  It is asserted that since the complainant did not make the payment of the outstanding bills, the services were disconnected and after the adjustment of outstanding bills, the balance amount was paid to the complainant.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of Opposite Party.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, Representative/Official of the Opposite Party and have also perused the entire record as well as written arguments.

 

6]       The complainant in person submitted that being a student of IT (Final Year), he required internet for technical work, approached the Opposite Party for BSNL Broadband connection, being attracted by its advertisement about combo plan of monthly rental of Rs.799/- unlimited with 2mbps speed upto 20 GB, 512kbps speed after 20GB and unlimited free calling during 9pm to 7am and preferred to buy the said plan. The complainant submitted that he deposited, as per the plan Rs.1500/- in cash for purchasing of modem on 22^nd March, 2016 and paid Rs.1299/- on 24^th March, 2016 for security of modem as well as landline-set. The complainant disputed that against the connection applied on 22.3.2016, the Opposite Party activated the connection on 26.3.2016. The complainant alleged that the plan opted by him troubled him since its installation, as the speed of the internet connection was not upto the mark as committed by the Opposite Party and despite numerous complaints, the Opposite Party failed to rectify the defect and also that the Opposite Party charged Rs.600/- for the landline set in the bill generated by the Opposite Party, which otherwise was not informed to the complainant to be charged likewise. The complainant also disputed that the Opposite Party generated the first bill from the date when the landline and broadband connection was not operational. In nutshell the complainant also claimed that he is not liable to pay the bill generated by the Opposite Party as they failed to give the services, as per the plan and as per the assurance given by the officials of the Opposite Party. The complainant has claimed in his prayer that he be awarded Rs.50,000/- for his study loss, Rs.20,000/- for harassment and agony; Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and councel fee; Rs.2799/- paid to Opposite Party and Rs.1000/- spent by him on travelling from home to Opposite Party Office for complaining and prayed that the amount of bill generated by the Opposite Party should be made to zero.

 

7]       On the contrary, the Opposite Party admitted that the connection was activated on 26.3.2016 and denied all the allegations of the complainant completely being devoid of any proof in that regard. It is submitted that due services were provided by the Opposite Party as and when were called upon by the complainant. 

 

8]       The Opposite Party further submitted that the complainant regularly used the landline and broadband facility from the date of its installation and also placed on record the usage chart in support of the same (Ann.OP-1).  It is also claimed that the complainant was given the number of his choice, which was applied vide letter dated 01.04.2016. The Opposite Party further claimed that all the charges charged from the complainant were as per the plan/scheme and also as per the applicable rules.  Denying any deficiency as regards to the speed of internet connection, the Opposite Party submitted that in the plan opted by the complainant, the speed is not to be static and will be reduced after the prescribed usage data has been exhausted and claimed that the complainant has widely used the facility.  With regard to the complaint of billing period starting from 26.3.2016  to 28.3.2016, it is claimed that an adjustment of rent was done for that period and again fresh bill upto date was generated by the Opposite Party, which was not paid.  Further, the Opposite Party also claimed that due to the non-payment of the bill, they had disconnected the services of the complainant after adjusting of outstanding due amount and the balance was paid to the complainant. 

 

9]       After going through the record on file as well as submission of the parties, we are of the opinion that the allegations of the complainant are not supported by any cogent and convincing evidence on record.  There is no expert report placed on record by the complainant to prove the slow speed of the internet connection, as alleged. The usage chart appended by the Opposite Party shows that the complainant had extensively used the internet and landline facility of the Opposite Party.             Admittedly, the complainant has not paid any of the bill amount generated by the Opposite Party, for the reason that the Opposite Party generated the first bill from the date of installation and not from the date of activation of the connection to which the Opposite Party also submitted that they have adjusted the said amount by regenerating fresh bill. Thus, in such scenario, we cannot order for any refund when no payment has been made by the complainant towards the bills generated by the Opposite Party.

 

10]      The complainant pleaded in his complaint that his services have been disconnected by the Opposite Party but has not raised any objection regarding disconnection of the services being made after the adjustment of security by the Opposite Party. Since the Opposite Party has submitted that they have disconnected the connection provided to the complainant, after adjusting the security etc. deposited by the complainant, due to default in making payment of the bills, and the balance was paid to the complainant and also the matter has not been agitated by the complainant so, no deficiency is attributed on the part of Opposite Party. Further, in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, no deficiency in service is made out against the Opposite Party. 

 

11]      From the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore, the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

19^th September, 2016                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER