Delhi

North East

CC/428/2015

Premwati Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 428/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Premwati Devi Prop. of M/s Sandeep Ind. 460, Phase-5, Gali No. 6, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi 110094 Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
	Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Block-C, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053	Opposite Party

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	03.11.2015
	RESERVED FOR ORDER:	21.05.2018
	DATE OF DECISION:	30.05.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER

1. The complainant had submitted that she is the proprietor M/s Sandeep Industry and running candle manufacturing and trading industries from 460-Phase-V, Gali No. 6, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar Delhi 110094 and she had got installed one telephone connection bearing no 22932163 from the OP and the OP had offered one another number to the complainant bearing no. 22932162 and both the connections were installed at the same premises. She had further stated that she is an illiterate lady and was ignorant of the illegal tactics of the OP as the OP installed the said connection knowing fully well that there is no proper cable line fitted over there and as such both the connections remained faulty and without connectivity most of the times but the OP kept sending the bills and recovery of charges and rents for the facility and services, which they had not provided to the complainant. The complainant lodged a number of complaints to the OP but no action was taken and for the last three months there was no cable line and despite repeated requests of the complainant, the grievance was not redressed by the OP. Since, the OP was sending and collecting rent as well as charges from the complainant for the last three months without providing any connectivity or services and as such complainant was facing a loss Rs. 2000/- per day for losing her contacts with clients and customer with whom the complainant had regular dealings and therefore, the OP is liable to pay                  Rs. 2,00,000/- towards damages on account of default on their part in providing service despite charging rent from the complainant. The complainant sent the complaint to the OP alongwith copies of the bills and also served a legal notice dated 28.07.2015 but all in vain. Keeping in view the above, the OP had provided deficient service to complainant and as such are liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, the complainant has filed the present complaint and has prayed to this Forum to direct the OP to provide necessary services to the complainant completely and absolutely and also direct the OP to pay a sum of                 Rs. 2,00,000/- to complainant for suffering lot of mental agony and physical pain alongwith Rs. 25,000/- payable towards litigation expenses.

A copy of legal notice dated 28.07.2015 addressed to OP and written complaint dated 05.08.2011 has been attached alongwith copies of the bills raised by the OP from December 2014 till June 2015 against the telephone numbers allotted to the complainant with the complaint.

2. Notice was issued to OP which entered appearance before  this Forum on 17.02.2016 and filed its written statement on 13.03.2016 in which OP took the preliminary objection that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint as the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment titled General Manager, Telecom V/s. M Krishnan and Anr as well as  judgment passed by Hon’ble National Commission in R.P. No. 4507/2009 titled as MTNL V/s. S.P. Shukla in which the Hon’ble NCDRC held that the consumer court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter of telecommunication as it is governed by a special act and therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further, OP objected that any dispute arising in respect of telephone, apparatus, line, bills etc shall be determined by referring the same for Arbitration as per the agreement between the parties as well as u/s 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act. The OP specifically submitted that the complainant has filed the present complaint without any cause of action against the OP because the grievances of complainant are rectified from time to time and the complainant is fully satisfied with the services of OP vide letter 19.02.2016. Further, the OP had already given rebates in the telephone bills to complainant according to the fault history of the telephone for the period July 2015 to October 2015 as per the guidelines which amounts were adjusted in the subsequent bills and the OP has also been processing for rent rebate till February 2016 and rebate if any would also be adjusted / refunded to the complainant and therefore the OP urged that there is no deficiency on the part of OP and hence the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Further OP, while admitting primary cable fault in connection, denied any malafide intent behind installation of connection as alleged by the complainant and submitted that the said defects were rectified immediately within 1 or 2 days and whenever the broadband was not working during the faulty period, the OP granted the rebate on the rent for such faulty periods to the complainant and specifically for July 2015 to October 2015 and OP has been processing rent rebate till February 2016 which shall be reflected in subsequent bills. OP further denied allegation of sending / collecting rental and other charges from the complainant for last three months (months not specified) or that any damages were payable by OP to the complainant on account of default on OPs part in providing service since OP always promptly rectified the problem of the complainant and was not liable for any loss of business, profit, revenue or goodwill, anticipated savings etc howsoever it arises suffered by the complainant.  
3. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant wherein it was stated that the present complaint of the complainant is not barred u/s 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides resolution of dispute by referring the same to the arbitration. Moreover, the complainant had been using the connection continuously from 1993 onwards through which as a matter of fact the complainant had got many contracts and clients via the above said two connections and the complainant has distributed her contact number to many of her clients and customers and therefore, it was stated that the complainant is facing a loss @ Rs. 2000/- per day and the OP is liable to pay at least Rs. 2,00,000/- towards damages on account of default on their part in providing services.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP wherein it was stated that the grievances of complainant were rectified from time to time and the complainant was fully satisfied with the services of the OP. Moreover, the OP submitted that it had processed rent rebate upto Feb 2016 as per fault and granted rebate of Rs. 1442/- to the complainant and the earlier rebate were also adjusted in subsequent bills and the telephones were working fine.
5. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit wherein she reiterated her grievance in her complaint and stated that she had suffered both mentally and financially due to OP and the OP had falsely stated that she was satisfied with services of OP vide letter dated 19.02.2016 and denied receiving any rebate in fault history of telephone from July 2015 to October 2015 from OP when the phone was out of order.   
6. Written arguments were filed by OP wherein most of the points were reiterated as mentioned in its written statement and evidence.
7. Complainant filed written arguments and reiterated her grievance in her complaint and evidence.
8. The OP submitted a detailed account of rent rebate for the period 13.06.2015 to 17.09.2015 and 08.09.2015 to 18.02.2016 of telephone no. 22932163 of the complainant wherein it was mentioned that an amount of Rs. 925.66p was adjusted as rebate for the period 13.06.2015 to 07.09.2015 and further an amount of Rs. 1491.79p was adjusted in the billing cycle as rebate for the period from 08.09.2015 to 18.02.2016. Therefore in total a rebate of Rs.2416/- was given by OP to the complainant from 13.06.2015 to 18.02.2016. Further, it was stated that telephone number 22932162 was installed at same address under 1+1 scheme to the subscriber and no rent has been charged on telephone number 22932162 and therefore, rent rebate for this number has not been considered. OP also placed on record internal letter dated 19.02.2016 regarding redressal of grievance of the complainant regarding rebate in bills for June 2015-September 2015 having been adjusted in her bills after which no complaint has been registered by the subscriber (complainant) in OP complaint service no.198. Satisfactory slip was attached therewith. In addition to above, the OP place on record copy of judgment passed by Hon’ble National Commission R.P. No. 2856/2010 in the matter of MTNL V/s. M/s Saroj Metal Works Pvt Ltd wherein it was mentioned that in view of reliance placed upon judgment of Apex Court in General Manager, Telecom V/s M.Krishanan & Anr-III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC), the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction.  
9. We have heard the arguments addressed by both the parties and have gone through the evidence submitted by them in support of their contentions. In view of the documentary evidence placed on record by the OP pertaining to grant of rebate and adjustment given to the complainant against the bills raised for faulty period June 2015 – October 2015 – upto February 2016 which was the period when the telephone no. 22932163 was out of order and the cause of the present complaint no grievance remains qua the OP and therefore the complaint is dismissed as no deficiency of service or cause of action is maintainable by the complainant. 
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 30.05.2018)     

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member