Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/133/2017

Smt. Yashoda Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/ s Reliance Communications Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan Kumar Sharma Adv.

16 Nov 2017

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	133 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	06.02.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	16.11.2017

 

 

 

 

Yashoda Rani aged about 83 years Wd/o Sh.Hans Raj Jatana, resident of H.No.341, Sector 25, Panchkula (through Power of Attorney Sh.Rajinder Kumar Wadhwa s/o Late Sh.Arjun Dev Wadhwa, resident of H.No.341, Sector 25, Panchkula.  

                               …..Complainant

Versus

M/s Reliance Communications Ltd., through Sh.Sushil Marwah, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, DLF Building F-Block, Chandigarh.   

                      ….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER

                               

Argued by :    

Sh.Pawan Kumar Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Amish Goel, Adv. for Opposite Party

 

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, as per the case of complainant, the Opposite Party signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 1.7.2008 (Ann.C-1) for installation of DLC (Digital Loop Carrier) and TNIC (Transport Network Carrier) as well as to provide access to the engineers and also agreed to pay the rent of Rs.1800/- and single POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) connection with free local calls worth Rs.1000/- per month.  It is averred that the Opposite Party failed to make the payment of the monthly rental charges and even failed to give the services of telephone and forced the complainant to run from pillar to post to get DLC and TNIC removed and compelled to write numerous letters.  It is also averred that the complainant is entitled to increased rent from Rs.1800/- to Rs.2600/- as promised by Opposite Party and even failed to make the payment of rent from April 2015 and liable to make the payment of Rs.18,200/-. It is submitted that on the basis of Special Tariff Plan, the Opposite Party is liable to provide the services of POTS connection with free local calls worth Rs.1000/- which has been stopped from last six months causing loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs.8000/-.  It is also submitted that due to non-working of the telephone, the husband of the complainant had expired since the complainant could not call the doctor in time and in case had he been provided timely medical aid, he could have been survived, which has caused a lot of mental and physical agony to the complainant.  Thereafter, a legal notice was sent to the Opposite Party, whereupon the Opposite Party promised to continue the services vide reply dated 10.12.2015 and handed over the cheque of service rendered to the Opposite Party amounting to Rs.14,800/- towards rent upto April, 2016, but thereafter till date no service as well as rent has been paid by the Opposite Party.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply stating that the complaint is not maintainable as the entire complaint has been based upon the Memorandum of Understanding, dated 1^st July, 2008 entered with Hansraj Jatana (Husband of the complainant) and that the complainant is seeking the relief for payment of service charges of single POTS and damages which amounts to suit for recovery and thereby proper court fee is required to be paid by filing a civil recovery suit, which the complainant is evading by false nomenclature.  It is also stated that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 1.7.2008 was entered with Hansraj Jatana (Husband of the complainant) under which premises was let out for the installation of DLC for the purposes of providing telecom transmission and thus, complainant does not fall under the definition of a “consumer” under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the complainant has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

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

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       It is the objection raised by the Opposite Party that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ for the reason that MOU in question had been signed between the husband of the complainant Sh.Hansraj Jatana and the present Opposite Party on 01.07.2008.  In our opinion, the complainant is the beneficiary (being thelegal heir of Sh.Hansraj Jatana) under the MOU singed between her husband and the present Opposite Party and thus, is very well covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Therefore, the objection raised by the Opposite Party in this regard is rejected being not tenable.

 

7]       The perusal of the MOU reveals that the OP had agreed to pay Rs.1800/- per month for the usage of the power supply needed for the operation of DLC (Digital Loop Carrier) and TNIC (Transport Network Carrier) to be installed in the premises of the complainant.  Under the said MOU, the Opposite Party Company also committed to provide single POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) connection with free local calls worth Rs.1000/- per month to the first party to MOU till the expiry of MOU or till the removal of TLC etc. kept in the premises.  Under the said MOU, the Opposite Party also agreed to provide certain incentives/services to the husband of the complainant (first party to the MOU). We are of the considered view that the MOU was not a pure contract of hiring any benefits but it was a mixed contract whereby some benefits/incentives in the shape of services were agreed to be provided by the OP to the husband of the complainant.

 

8]       The handwritten letter dated 17.10.2014 by the husband of the complainant (Ann.C-2) reveals that the Opposite Party was requested to remove the DLC (Digital Loop Carrier) and TNIC (Transport Network Carrier) from the premises within 2 months on account that first party to the MOU i.e. husband of the complainant was not keeping good health.  The legal notice Ann.C-3, dated 24.10.2015 placed on record further clarifies that even after the expiry of One year from the date of issuance of the request letter dated 17.10.2014, the Opposite Party did not act upon the request for removal of DLC & TNIC.  In the said legal notice, the complainant also assailed the disconnection of the POTS services whereby the OP was liable to provide free local calls worth Rs.1000/- per month. Though the Opposite Party in its reply has submitted that it has not disconnected the services, as alleged, but not placed on record any documentary evidence in this regard.

 

9]       In reply to the legal notice, the Opposite Party Company rejected the demand of enhancement of the rentals from Rs.1800/- to Rs.2600/- as claimed by the complainant.  Further in the said reply the Opposite Party duly admitted that the payment of rental amount is due and showed willingness to make the payment of the arrears of the rentals as per the terms & conditions of the MOU dated 1.7.2008.  Further it is acquiesced in Para No.5 of the reply to the legal notice (Ann.C-4) dated 10.12.2015 that it is  willing to remove the equipments installed at the premises of the complainant and seeks time till 31.12.2015 to remove and shift the equipments installed at the premises and acknowledged that the Opposite Party shall make the payment of rentals till 31.12.2015 at the existing rentals of Rs.1800/-. 

 

10]      The complainant disputed that the OP till date had not removed the DLC (Digital Loop Carrier) and TNIC (Transport Network Carrier) from her premises and had also not paid the due rentals from April, 2016 onwards. The complainant also assailed that the OP has not restored the POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) which they have disconnected much earlier.   

 

11]      In view of the above admissions made by the Opposite Party in its reply (Ann.C-4) to the legal notice, it is clear enough that the Opposite Party is under obligation to pay the arrears of rent which remained unpaid and also liable to pay the rentals till the day it would remove the equipments installed at the premises of the complainant. The omission on the part of Opposite Party for not adhering to the request made by the husband of the complainant on 17.10.2014 vide letter Ann.C-2 till date and not restoring the Plain Old Telephone Service of the complainant, amounts to unfair trade practice besides a case of deficiency in service.

 

12]      In our opinion, the complainant in the present complaint, a widow and an elderly lady of 83 years, remained devoid of due benefits and services entitled under the MOU in question signed on 1.7.2008. The complainant was forced to indulge into present litigation to get her rightful claim.

 

13]     In view of the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party has been proved.  Therefore, the complaint is allowed against Opposite party with following directions:-

1. To remove DLC (Digital Loop Carrier), TNIC (Transport Network Carrier) and other equipments from the premises of the complainant forthwith;

 

2. To pay to the complainant Rs.1800/- per month, agreed rent, from the due date till the date of removal of DLC (Digital Loop Carrier), TNIC (Transport Network Carrier) and other equipments from the premises of the complainant;

 

3. To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant due to deficient services as well as unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party;

 

4. To pay litigation cost of Rs.7000/-.

 

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/-, apart from the above awarded relief.

 

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

Announced

16^th November, 2017                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                     

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER