PRESENT: Sh. Balkar Singh, Adv. for the complaint.

           Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Adv. for OPs.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, as per the Complainant, some 2 ½ years ago, he got installed a Broad Band Connection with the Phone No. 0172-5009263 under unlimited Connect Tariff Plan (New Talk 399), with a fixed monthly rent of Rs.399/- per month. His contention was that he had been using the aforesaid connection for about 2 years and was receiving bills exceeding Rs.399/-, which he paid in time. In March, 2009, on making enquiry with the OPs, he was told that the Plan given to him was not “Unlimited Plan” and was told to obtain another tariff plan of Rs.766/- per month to use the broad band connection to an unlimited extent. Accordingly, he opted for the new tariff plan after paying the monthly rent of Rs.766/- to the OPs with effect from March, 2009. But to his utter surprise and dismay, again, the OPs sent him a bill for the period from 16.3.2009 to 15.4.2009 i.e. for one month for Rs.5632, which was very much exceeding the monthly rent of Rs.766/- (Annexure C-1). Whereas the bill should not have exceeded the fixed tariff of Rs.766/- per month. Again, he received a bill for the period 16.4.2009 to 15.5.2009 of Rs.7134/- which was clearly excessive of Rs.766/-. In the meantime, with effect from 1.5.2009, the instrument installed by the OPs stopped functioning and remained dead without there being any dial tone in the telephone instrument. On 5.5.2009, when the Complainant approached the OP No. 2 to verify the actual fact of excessive bills, he was told that the billing dispute could be settled for Rs.2400/-, where after all his bills upto the month of May, 2009, shall be deemed to have been cleared, which he deposited, along with the previous bill of Rs.1500/- vide receipt dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure C-3). The settlement was reduced in a pre-format paper vide application No. 8717, dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure C-2) . It was alleged that after settling the billing dispute, the OPs released the broad band connection to the Complainant only for two days i.e. 10.05.2009 and 11.05.2009 and thereafter, it again went into previous condition. Thereafter, OP No. 1, when contacted, told the Complainant that he had been allotted the tariff plan of Rs.666/- which was not for the purpose of unlimited use. The Complainant again got a set back when he received the next bill for the period from 16.5.2009 to 15.6.2009 for Rs.7293/- (Annexure C-3), although he had not been using the broad band connection since 12.5.2009 the set being dead. The OPs when contacted, failed to give any satisfactory reply and rather, asked the Complainant to deposit Rs.800/- by every month until or unless the problem was removed. However, he again deposited a sum of Rs.800/- on 13.7.2009 with the OP No. 2 vide Receipt No. 12900077 (Annexure C-5). Even thereafter, he was not provided the services of broad band and OP sent a bill for the period 16.7.2009 to 15.8.2009 for Rs.8,438/- (Annexure C-6). In this backdrop, a legal notice dated 27.7.2009 (Annexure C-7) was served upon the OPs, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainants have prayed for the following reliefs:-

a)  The OPs be directed to make the payment of Rs.8,000/- as a compensation on account of excess money paid by the Complainant to the OPs without availing the services of broad band connection.

b)  The OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- on account of unnecessary harassment and agony suffered by the Complainant due to negligent service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs;

c)  The OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint and legal expenses incurred by the Complainant while sending legal notice to the OPs.

d)  Any other relief to which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit may also be granted to the Complainant.

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 

3]      OPs have taken some preliminary objections, saying the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with the billing matters of the consumers in relation and Telecom companies in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, stating that all such matters be resolved under Section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, through Arbitration and hence, the present complaint was not maintainable in the Forum.

4]      Further, OPs in their written statement/reply, on merits of the case, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the broad band connection was installed at the premises of the Complainant with the telephone number 0172-5009623. It was admitted that the Complainant got enquired the matter upon which he was told that since his monthly bill exceeded Rs.399/-, he should go in for a Tariff Plan of Rs.766/- per month and that the tariff plan given to him was not for the purpose of unlimited use. A totally correct bill was sent by the OPs depending upon the usage of the connection by the Complainant for the period 16.03.2009 to 15.04.2009. Fixed monthly charges were 763/- and the usage charges were for the amount of Rs.4617/- (Total Rs.5380/-). Even the previous balance was due towards the Complainant for the amount of Rs.863/-. Hence, the total bill of Rs.5632/- was due towards Complainant for the period 16.3.2009 to 15.4.2009.  It was submitted that amount of Rs.7134/- was due towards the Complainant; hence, the correct bill was issued to him. It was admitted that a payment of Rs.1500/- was made, but the said payment was made on account of the balance amount, which was due towards the Complainant. While admitting the payment of Rs.800/- by the Complainant, it was asserted that the said amount was deposited on the pretext of previous balance, which was due towards the Complainant. It was also admitted that a bill of Rs.8438/- was sent to the Complainant. Since there was a previous balance of Rs.6234/-, which was due towards the Complainant, hence a bill of Rs.8438/- was rightly issued to the Complainant. While denying the receipt of any legal notice, all other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

5]      Parties led evidence in support of his contentions.

6]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsels for the Complainant and OPs. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having got installed a broad band connection with his Phone No. 0172-5009623 under the Connect Tariff Plan with a fixed monthly rent of Rs.399/- P.M. and that the Complainant was getting bills for the use of broadband connection much beyond the fixed amount of Rs.399/-, which was later changed to Rs.766/- P.M. (fixed) from March 2009 onwards, have all been established and admitted by the Parties. The only grievance of the Complainant against the OP – Telecom Company (Connect), has been that whereas he had taken the broadband connection from the OPs under unlimited plan, the OPs charged him much higher amounts than the fixed amount of Rs.399/- P.M. and Rs.766/- P.M. respectively. His another grievance with the OPs is that for some time, the telephone/ broadband connection was non-functional, but still the OPs charged him for the use of broadband connection. 

ii] The OPs in their written statement/ reply have denied all the allegations made by the Complainant against them, saying that the broadband connection taken by the Complainant from them was not an unlimited plan. The bills sent to the Complainant were for the actual usage of the broadband facility and the same were never paid by the Complainant in full, making only part payments every time. Subsequently, the Complainant asked the OPs to refund him the allegedly excessive amounts charged by them, as according to him, the OPs failed to convert the limited plan to unlimited plan. But as per the OPs, no refund of the amount was admissible, as the bills sent by the OPs to the Complainant were not excessive in nature and were issued only as per the actual usage of the broadband facility by the Complainant from time to time.

iii] As far as the issue of considering the present complaint on merits is concerned, from the documents and pleadings, as well as oral arguments put forth by the respective parties, it is quite clear that there is nothing on record, which shows that the Complainant has had ever taken the broadband facility from the OPs under any tariff plan with unlimited usage of broadband facility and no brochure or filled in application form is available on record showing the grant of any such facility by the OPs to the Complainant. The Complainant himself admits that he had taken the broadband connection from the OPs under the fixed monthly sum of Rs.399/- P.M. as monthly rent, which was subsequently got changed by him to another Tariff Plan of Rs.766/- P.M. The claim of the Complainant that this new tariff plan of Rs.766/- P.M. was to use the broadband connection to an unlimited extent, but there is neither any proof nor document nor any other evidence in support of the contention of the Complainant that this plan allowed him the unlimited use of the broadband facility. Further, a close examination of the bills enclosed by the Complainant as Annexures C-1 to C-6 shows that the Complainant has never paid any bill in full. For example, against the bill of Rs.5632/- (Annexure C-1) for the period 16.3.2009 to 15.4.2009, he has only paid a sum of Rs.1500/-. The next bill at Annexure C-4 is of Rs.7293/- for the period 16.5.2009 to 15.6.2009, against which he paid a only sum of Rs.800/- that too after the due date of its payment. The due date for payment was 29.6.2009, but the Complainant paid Rs.800/- on 13.7.2009. On the same lines, the next bill is at Annexure C-6 for Rs.8438/- with due date as 29.8.2009 and the same has not been paid at all till date by the Complainant. There is also Ann.C-2, in which the Complainant asked for the refund of the amount from the OPs, stating that the billing data is under dispute. Even this Annexure contains no details, as to how much excessive amount have been allegedly charged by the OPs from the Complainant and how much refund he expected to receive from them. The same story is repeated in the legal notice sent by the counsel for the Complainant to the OPs, asking for the refund of the excessive amount charged by the OPs with interest @9% p.a., without even specifying the exact amount of refund being claimed by the Complainant.

7]      From the above stated facts and figures, it is quite clear that the Complainant himself has been a chronic defaulter in making payment of the telephone/broadband facility bills raised by the OPs against him. As already stated in the foregoings, the Complainant has not been able to establish his case with regard to the grant of broadband facility by the OPs to him for an unlimited use, by paying a fixed amount of Rs.399/- P.M. or Rs.766/- P.M. as rental. The fact of the matter is that the OPs have charged the Complainant and sent him the telephone bills for the actual usage of the broadband facility by him. The Complainant has also not denied anywhere in the Complaint that he has not used the broadband connection as provided by the OPs to him. He has also not challenged the amount of bills sent to him by the OPs, by saying that he has not used the broadband facility to the extent of the amounts of the bills sent to him by the OPs. From all the above, it can be safely concluded that the Complainant has no case in his favour. Therefore, the  present complaint has no merit, substance or weight in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. The Complainant has failed to bring out or prove any deficiency of service or use of an unfair trade practice whatsoever against the OPs.

8]      Keeping in view the above, it is our considered view that the present complaint cannot be allowed in favour of the Complainant and clearly deserves rejection. Therefore, the same is dismissed. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

9]     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.