Ish Kumar filed a consumer case on 16 Jul 2008 against HFCL Infote Ltd in the Bhatinda Consumer Court. The case no is CC/08/98 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Punjab
Bhatinda
CC/08/98
Ish Kumar - Complainant(s)
Versus
HFCL Infote Ltd - Opp.Party(s)
K.S.Brar Advocate.
16 Jul 2008
ORDER
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (Punjab) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Govt. House No. 16-D, Civil Station, Near SSP Residence, Bathinda-151 001 consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/98
Ish Kumar
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
HFCL Infote Ltd HFCL Infotel Ltd
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB) CC No. 98 of 26.03.2008 Decided on : 16-07-2008 Ish Kumar S/o Sh. Puran Chand R/o H. No. 1859 (Old), New 5272 Street No. 3, Malvia Nagar, near Wadi Hospital, Bathinda. ... Complainant Versus 1.HFCL Infotel Ltd., (Popularly known as CONNECT) Regd. Office B-71, Phase VI, Industrial Focal Point,Mohali 160 055 (Punjab) through its M.D./Chairman. 2.HFCL Infotel Ltd., Guru Kanshi Marg, near HDFC Bank Ltd., Bathinda through its Incharge/Branch Manager ...Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM : Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member For the Complainant : Sh. S.P.S. Khokhar, Advocate. For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sh. Lalit Garg, Advocate. O R D E R LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT 1. Complainant is holding landline telephone connection No. 5000519 at his residence under monthly Tariff Plan of Rs. 199/-(calls upto Rs. 199/- are free) and excess thereof is to be charged. He has been availing the services of the opposite parties for the last about one year and has been making the payments of the monthly bills so issued from time to time. Bill for the period 16.10.07 to 15.11.07 was not sent to him. Various complaints were lodged but to no effect. Ultimately on the suggestion of the opposite parties, he deposited Rs. 260/- without getting the bill. Last date for depositing the amount of the bills is 3rd of every month. Again bill for the period 16.11.07 to 15.12.07 was not sent. Complaint was again lodged. Duplicate bill was issued on 4.1.08 i.e. after due date of 3.1.08 which has not been deposited by him. Thereafter bill for the period 16.12.07 to 15.1.08 was received which included amount of earlier bill as well as penalty charges of Rs. 56/- approx. for non-payment of earlier bill. This bill was for a sum of Rs. 744/-. In comparison of the bill for the period from 16.11.07 to 15.12.07 and 16.12.07 to 15.1.08 with the earlier bills, it transpired that charges of Rs. 30/- on account of VAS and Rs. 50/- as Infotainment charges have been added wrongly in these bills. Various complaints were made but to no effect. Ultimately request was made at the customer care of the opposite parties that either correct bills by deleting penalty as well as charges on account of VAS and Infotainment be issued or connection be disconnected. Executive of the opposite parties told that charged amount cannot be waived and he has to pay the same and connection can only be disconnected on written application. Thereafter different offices of the opposite parties started making calls to him at his residence compelling him to deposit the amount of the bill. He did not avail any services concerning VAS and infotainment. On 14.2.08 before commencement of billing circle period of 16.2.08 to 15.3.08, he personally appeared before opposite party No. 2. An application was moved by him stating the aforesaid facts and showing willingness to deposit the amount. Request was also made by him that he is not ready to avail the services of the opposite parties in future and that his connection be disconnected immediately and that he would not be liable for any future payment. On receipt of the application, opposite party No. 2 while admitting the aforesaid charges to be in-genuine, waived Rs. 225/- on account of penalty, VAS and Infotainment charges and got deposited Rs. 519/-. Despite his application, connection has not been disconnected. Bill for the period 16.1.08 to 15.2.08 has not been issued. Again complaint was made but to no effect. Opposite parties started making calls at his residence thereby compelling him to deposit the bill amount. Opposite parties have again sent bill dated 16.3.08 for the period from 16.2.08 to 15.3.08 for a sum of Rs. 703/- which includes penalty of Rs. 56.18 and Rs. 340.60 as the amount of previous bill and also Rs. 30/- as VAS and Rs. 50/- as Infotainment charges. In this manner, he has been put to unnecessary harassment. He alleges that he is undergoing mental tension and agony. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and has preferred this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to correct the bill for the period 16.1.08 to 15.2.08 (for which period he has not received the bill); waive the amount regarding period 16.2.08 to 15.3.08 (regarding which he has already applied for disconnection); pay Rs. 20,000/- as compenstion for mental tension and agony and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the litigation. 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file it; he has not come with clean hands and complaint if false and frivolous. On merits, they admit that complainant is holding landline telephone connection at his residence under monthly Tariff Plan of Rs. 199/-. They were issuing bills from time to time and they were being received either by him or by his family members. Bill for the period 16.11.07 to 15.12.07 was issued. Complainant or his family members might have lost it. On the request of the complainant, duplicate bill was issued. Bill for the period 16.12.07 to 15.1.08 was issued. Since he himself remained negligent in paying the amount of the bill for the previous month, amount of penalty was added as per rules. Similarly amount of Vas and Infotainment charges was added as per their rules. In order to maintain good relations, they have already adjusted a sum of Rs. 225/- in his account on account of VAS and Infotainment charges upto 15.1.08. Request was made by the complainant for disconnection of the connection. He has concealed true facts. He had himself visited office of opposite party No. 2 and executed the Visit and Retention Form stating that he wants to retain the same number due to which connection is still existing in his premises and is being used by him and as such, he is liable to pay the charges thereof. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint. 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), copy of subscriber agreement form (Ex. C-2), photocopy of bill dated 16.5.07 (Ex. C-3), photocopy of bill detail (Ex. C-4), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-5), photocopy of Retention Form (Ex. C-6), photocopy of receipt regarding delivery of bill (Ex. C-7), photocopy of letter dated 9.6.08 alongwith postal receipt (Ex. C-8), photocopy of details of calls (Ex. C-9 to Ex. C-10), photocopy of receipt dated 3.11.07 (Ex. C-11), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-12), photocopy of bill dated 16.10.07 (Ex. C-13), photocopy of detail of bill dated 16.10.07 (Ex. C-14), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-15), photocopy of letter dated 14.2.08 (Ex. C-16), photocopy of bill dated 16.12.07 (Ex. C-17), photocopy of detail of bill dated 16.12.07 (Ex. C-18). Photocopy of bill dated 16.1.08 (Ex. C-19) and photocopy of bill dated 16.3.08 (Ex. C-20). 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Vikram Katia, Officer (Ex. R-1) has been tendered in evidence. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant. 6. Onus to prove the allegations in the complaint lies heavily on the complainant. He is required to discharge it by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. As conceded by the learned counsel for the complainant at Bar and as is clear from the evidence on record matter regarding the payment of charges in connection with the telephone connection of the complainant has already been settled upto 15.1.08. Ex. C-19 is the copy of the bill from 16.12.07 to 15.1.08 for Rs. 744/-. Complainant had moved an application copy of which is Ex. C-16 with the request for correction of bills for the period from 15.11.07 onwards and for disconnection of the telephone connection. It is dated 14.2.08. Opposite parties waived Rs. 225/- out of the amount. Remaining amount of the bill was deposited by the complainant vide payment receipt Ex. C-15. 7. Arguments pressed into service by the learned counsel for the complainant are that opposite parties did not issue bill for the period from 16.1.08 to 15.2.08. Rather the opposite parties started making calls at his residence to deposit the bill amount. He further argued that opposite parties have sent bill dated 16.3.08 for the period from 16.2.08 to 15.3.08 for a sum of Rs. 703/- which includes penalty of Rs. 56.18 and 340.60 as the amount of previous bill and also Rs. 30/- as VAS and Rs. 50/- as Infotainment charges. His next submission is that complainant had applied for disconnection of his telephone connection on 14.2.08. They are liable to waive the amount concerning the period from 10.2.08 to 15.3.08. His next argument is that they are sending bills even for the subsequent periods. 8. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that bill for the period from 16.1.08 to 15.2.08 was issued. Complainant did not make its payment due to which its amount was added in the bill dated 16.3.08, copy of which is Ex. C-20. On 14.2.08 he had filled in columns of the Retention Form for retaining this telephone connection and as such, the question of its disconnection did not arise. Moreover, he continued making telephone calls even after 14.2.08 as is evident from the copy of the bills copies of which are Ex. C-9 & Ex. C-10. Hence, there is no question of waiving the amount shown in the bill for the period 16.2.08 to 15.3.08, copy of which is Ex. C-20. 9. We have considered the respective arguments. 10. The prayer of the complainant is that opposite parties be directed to issue correct bill for the period 16.1.08 to 15.2.08 as he has not receive the bill of this period. His further prayer is that opposite parties should waive the amount regarding the period 16.2.08 to 15.3.08 as he had already applied for disconnection of the telephone connection. Complainant reiterates his version in the affidavit Ex. C-4 in which he states that he did not receive the bill for the period 16.1.08 to 15.2.08 and that in the next bill dated 16.3.08 amount of the bill for the period from 16.2.08 to 15.3.08 has been shown and that it also includes the amount of the previous bills. This affidavit of the complainant stands amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Vikram Katia Officer of the opposite parties in which he states in so many words that they were issuing bills to the complainant from time to time and they were being received by him. Complainant and his family members might have lost the original bill. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the affidavit of Sh. Vikram Katia. With it, the affidavit of the complainant is fully bracketted. 11. Admittedly complainant did not deposit the amount of the bill for the period 16.1.08 to 15.2.08. Mere fact that opposite parties once waived Rs. 225/- out of the amount of bill dated 16.1.08, copy of which is Ex. C-9 in order to maintain good relation with the complainant is no ground to hold that he is not liable to pay the amount of the bill for the period 16.1.08 to 15.2.08 which has been added in the bill dated 16.3.08. 12. Another question is as to whether opposite parties were bound to disconnect the telephone connection on the basis of application dated 14.2.08, copy of which is Ex. C-16. Reply to our minds is in the negative. On the same day i.e. 14.2.08 complainant executed Visit and Retention Form, copy of which is Ex. C-6. A perusal of the same reveals that request was made by him through it to retain telephone No. 0164-5000519 i.e. telephone number which was previously being used by him. In these circumstances, when he made the request on the same day i.e. 14.2.08 for retention of his telephone connection and he continued making telephone calls from 16.2.08 onwards upto 7.4.08 as is clear from Ex. C-10, opposite parties could not disconnect his telephone connection. Similarly complainant cannot seek the waiver of the amount regarding the period 16.2.08 to 15.3.08. Prayer made for disconnection of the telephone connection through letter copy of which is Ex. C-16 stood automatically withdrawn when he filled telephone connection retention form on the same day copy of which is Ex. C-6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We are constrained to observe that complainant has not come with clean hands. He is claiming that request for disconnection of telephone connection was made by him on 14.2.08. He has concealed that Visit-cum-Retention form for retaining the telephone connection was executed by him on the same day i.e. 14.2.08. Similarly he has not disclosed that even after 14.2.08 he was making telephone calls from this telephone number. One who seeks equity must do equity which he has not done. 13. In the result, complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned. Pronounced : 16-07-2008 (Lakhbir Singh ) President (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member 'iki'
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.