Delhi

North East

CC/87/2018

Sh. Om Prakash Wadhwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

12 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 87/18

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Om Prakash Wadhwa R/o: B-18, Mansarover Park G.T. Road, Shahdara Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Shahdara Zone, Dishad Garden Delhi-110095	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:             JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                    DATE OF DECISION      :

08.05.2018 26.04.2022 12.05.2022

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant in having a MTNL landline phone connection having Number. 22582021. It is alleged by the Complainant that the said telephone connection remained out of order during the months of September & October 2014. Complainant had approached the Opposite Party for rectification of defects and for getting his bills adjusted accordingly. Again the telephone went out of order in the month of October & November, 2015. Complainant had got waived/ adjusted his bills from the Opposite Party. It is submitted by the Complainant that again the telephone connection went out of order from 15.06.2016 to 20.08.2016 due to digging and filling of water in the area. Complainant made a complaint to the Opposite Party but Complainant was surprised that complaint no. 1057 dated 18.06.2016 was not registered. Complainant wrote a letter to Opposite Party on 01.08.2016 and Opposite Party revised the telephone bills as per their convenience. It is also alleged by the Complainant that he had been threatened and debarred for the services of outgoing call by the billing department.
2. Complainant has prayed for waiving the amount of Rs. 73/- for the bill of month of July 2016 and prayed for its adjustment in the future bill and he had already paid the said bill. He has also prayed for revising the telephone bill for the month of August 2016 which was calculated as Rs. 267/- i.e. bill for the complete month of August 2016. He has also prayed for providing some information regarding the number of complaints received in the office of Opposite Party from 15.08.2016 to 20.08.2016 and he has sought date of rectification of the defects which were mentioned in his complaints. He has also sought details on the basis of which the bills of June 2016 and July 2016 were reduced to Rs. 81/- and Rs. 73/- respectively.
3. Complainant have attached copies of the telephone bills, copy of letter dated 01.08.2016 and copy of letter dated 11.01.2017.

Case of the Opposite Party

4. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. It is stated by the Opposite Party that the Complainant’s telephone connection remained out of service for a very limited period of time in the months of September & October 2014 for that Complainant was given due waiver in the bill amount. It is denied by the Opposite Party that the telephone connection of the Complainant went out of service in the month of October & November, 2015. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that the connection of Complainant remained out of service for a period of 15.06.2016 to 31.07.2016 because of laying down the underground cables in the area so that the customers of opposite party may get much better service. It is also submitted by the Opposite Party that Complainant was given due reversal of the bill amount for the period of 15.06.2016 to 31.07.2016.
5. Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant has lodged complaints only on 04.07.2016, 12.07.2016 and 16.07.2016 vide docket no. 742, 305, and 950 respectively. It is alleged by the Opposite Party that Complainant did not lodge any complaint vide compliant no. 1057 dated 18.06.2016.
6.  Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite party and he has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support if his complaint filed his affidavits wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. He has relied upon the documents i.e. copies of the telephone bills, copy of letter dated 01.08.2016 and copy of letter dated 11.01.2017.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

8. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Rishi Pal Singh SDO, in the office of Dilshad Garden Telephone Exchange, MTNL. In his affidavit, he has supported the case of Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments and Conclusion

9. We have heard the Complainant and the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that his landline phone remained out of order from 15.06.2016 to 20.08.2016. It is also his case that he paid a bill of Rs. 73/- for the month of July 2016 which he had paid for the period during which the phone was not working. It is his case that bill of Rs. 267/- for the month of August 2016 which was calculated for the entire month may be revised as the telephone was out of order till 20.08.2016. On the other hand the case of the Opposite Party is that telephone of the Complainant was working. In its written statement the Opposite Party has mentioned that the Complainant had been given rebate by the Opposite Party w.e.f. from 15.06.2016 to 31.07.2016. The Opposite Party has filed certified copies of the bills/charges showing the number of calls for the relevant time. It is also submitted by the Opposite Party in its written statement that there was digging work which was going on in the area and on this account there were certain problems in the landline phones in the area.
10.  As discussed above it is admitted by the Opposite Party that rebate was given to the Complainant by Opposite Party for the period w.e.f. 15.06.2016 to 30.07.2016. If we assume the version of the Opposite Party that landline phone was functioning properly then why the rebate was given by the Opposite Party to the Complainant regarding the bills of the landline phone w.e.f. 15.06.2016 to 31.07.2016 This fact clearly shows that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party during the period of w.e.f. 15.06.2016 to 31.07.2016. The case of the Opposite Party is that rebate for the month of August, 2016 was not given as the telephone was functioning properly in the said month. It is also admitted by the Opposite Party that rebate from 15.06.2016 to 31.07.2016 was given by it. Therefore, it is clear that as per the case of Opposite Party the phone was not functioning till 31.07.2016 and for this reason rebate was given to the Complainant. It is also the case of Opposite Party that w.e.f. 01.08.2016 the telephone was working properly, meaning thereby the phone was rectified on 01.08.2016. However, no record has been produced by the Opposite Party to show that the phone was rectified on 01.08.2016. There is nothing on record to show by whom it was rectified. Therefore under these circumstances the version of the Opposite Party cannot be believed that the phone was functioning properly w.e.f. 01.08.2016.
11. In view of the above discussion it is order that the Opposite Party shall adjust the amount of Rs. 73/- pertaining to July 2016 in the future bill, it is also ordered that the Opposite Party shall revise the bill for the month of August 2016 by considering the fact that it was not functioning from 01.08.2016 to 20.08.2016 accordingly the Opposite Party shall charge the bill for 11 days for the month of August 2016. The Complainant has also sought some information from the Opposite Party. In our considered opinion we do not see any reason to provide the said information to the Complainant by way of this complaint filed by the Complainant. Keeping in view the old age of the Complainant compensation of Rs. 2,500/- is granted to him on account of litigation charges and harassment. Ordered accordingly.

 

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President