Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Sarabjit Singh Ahluwalia Advocate son of Gurmukh Singh against opposite parties i.e HFCL Infotel Ltd. through its authorised signatory and others seeking direction against the opposite parties for adjustment of bill of Internet Connection dated 16/1/2008 with the ensuing bill with further direction to pay monetary compensation on account of deficiency in its service. <br /> 2. Brief facts of the complaint lie in narrow compass. Complainant took Internet connection alongwith services of telephone connection bearing No.01822-509295 at his residence on payment of prescribed charges. He took a plan called as unlimited plan in which opposite parties have right to charge from the complainant Rs. 390/- plus taxes ( total bill of Rs.664/- per month ) for using unlimited Internet facility and also 50 telephone calls free in one month. It is averred that he paid Rs.750/- to the opposite party at the time of installation of connection which included installation charges and other expenses.. He received a bill of Rs.25/- but the complainant deposited Rs.700/-as advance and requested opposite party for supply of details of telephone calls. He received another bill of Rs. 1131/-. He requested the opposite party that at the time of installation of Internet Connection, It was settled by the opposite party that a maximum bill of Rs.664/- including all taxes will be charged for every month as per the plan given to the complainant and the opposite party had told the complainant that he has used telephone more than 50 calls in one month and hence the bill was for Rs.1131/-. However, his telephone ID showed only 29 calls and further this fact was also verified by the employees of the opposite party who assured him that bill will be adjusted as per its use. Opposite party also failed to supply details of telephone calls despite his request; rather they charged Rs. 1244/- which amounts to deficiency in service against which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared, controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim.Certain preliminary objections have been raised that complainant has no cause of action and he has tried to shield his own fault with sole intention to avoid the payment. This fact is not disputed that complainant took unlimited plan for unlimited use of Internet services alongwith 50 telephone calls free and this fact was duly in the knowledge of complainant. The maximum bill which was to be charged from the complainant was for Rs.664/- per momth. It is denied that a sum of Rs. 750/-per month was charged by the employee of opposite party. In fact a sum of Rs. 563/- was given by the complainant as installation charges and this fact was duly mentioned in subscriber agreement form signed by the complainant. Opposite party has thus justified bill of Rs.1131/- which included previous bill of Rs. 365/- and was not paid by the complainant and details wre given in the bill. It is denied that there was any statement between the complainant and opposite party that maximum bill of Rs.664/- including all the taxes will be charged. . It is also denied that complainant requested opposite party to check telephone ID which showed only 59 calls . In fact telephone ID can be tampered with but as per the meter and details given to the complainant the usage of calls were clearly there. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant Sarabjit Singh has produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.CA to CE.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite party produced in evidence affidavit Ex.OPW1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to OP13.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for opposite parties but counsel for complainant did not appear for last three hearings to address arguments though entire evidence was adduced. Therefore, to avoid the delay in the decision of the case, this Forum has considered it expedient to decide the case by going through evidence of the parties and also hearing arguments of learned counsel for the opposite party. This fact is not disputed that complainant took Internet Connection from the opposite party alongwith telephone connection bearing No. 01822-509295 with unlimited use of Internet connection with 50 telephone calls free in one month vide agreement form Ex.OP2 also receipt of Rs.563/- and also Ex.OP3 agreement form dated 14/11/2007. From the perusal of bill Ex.CB dated 16/12/2007 complainant challenged the validity of charges of 35 telephone calls but the opposite party has justified charges of excess telephone calls vide details of calls Ex.OP1. Complainant has not been able to assail authenticity of details of telephone calls used by him. No presumption of tampering with the telephone ID can be drawn in the face of computerized telephone calls recorded and produced by the opposite party vide details of calls Ex.OP1 and subsequent bills Ex.OP9 to OP13 which the complainant has been paying for the subsequent period.<br /> In the ultimate anslysis of aforesaid discussion, we do not find merit in this complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. <br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Announced : ( Gulshan Prashar) (Shashi Narang) ( A.K. Sharma)<br /> 12.9.2008 Member Member President.