BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER C.C. No. 215/2006 Filed on 28.07.2006 Dated : 15.11.2010 Complainant: Nair Ajit Krishnan, Flat No. F-10, PRS Enclave, E.V. Road, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.
(By adv. Nair Ajay Krishnan) Opposite parties :
M/s Tata Tele Services Ltd., S.L. Plaza, Palarivattom, Kochi-25. (By adv. Beena P.S)
M/s Tata Tele Services Ltd., Jeevan Bharathi Tower 1 (10th Floor), 124 Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110 001. M/s True Value Hub, Three Star Building, Opposite Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram-10.
This O.P having been taken as heard on 20.09.2010, the Forum on 15.11.2010 delivered the following: ORDER SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant had taken a Tata Indicom fixed wireless service telephone connection from the opposite party during June 2005, that during July 2005 complainant availed the Internet services offered by opposite parties, that he was not provided with any password or security feature to curb or control the unauthorized access to the Internet by outsiders including the technicians of opposite parties, that as per the said scheme the Internet access or usage charges for one unit (which is 1 minute) was 0.40 paise only, that petitioner while using the Internet facility observed that very often even after disconnecting the connection by clicking “Disconnect” icon on the computer screen as advised by the technicians, the connection was not severed and LCD display on the phone showed that connection was still running, that on taking up the matter with the opposite parties they had sent their technicians who checked the instrument and made some adjustments or corrections and assured that there won't be any problem thereafter, that the problem continued a number of times for which complainant also made complaints, that every time the technicians came, made some adjustments and assured that the error will not recur in future, that they even changed the telephone instrument 3 times, that in the first bill for the month of August 2005, complainant found that apart from the telephone usage charges of Rs. 320.40 he has been billed an amount of Rs. 460.80 for Internet usage for 152 units which actually amounted to Rs. 3.03 per unit as against their scheme of 0.40 ps per unit, that on taking up the matter with the opposite parties, opposite party stated that Internet usage was 1152 units and not 152 units. Since the complainant had no idea how to cross check the Internet usage as billed by opposite parties and believing their statement complainant made the payment for the bill amount of Rs. 882/-, that bill for the month of September 2005 Internet usage of 416 units for which he was billed Rs. 566.40 which was at the rate of Rs. 1.36 per unit as against their scheme of 0.40 ps opted by the complainant. That on again seeking clarification on the bill opposite parties stated that Internet usage was 1416 units, not 416 units as shown in the bill. The bill for the month of November 2005 showed the Internet usage of 1416 units amounting to Rs. 566.40 against the actual usage of 214 units amounting to Rs. 85.60. Based on the complaint opposite party admitted their excess charging for the month of August, September and November 2005 and waived Rs. 323.6, Rs. 373/- and Rs. 478.50 from the above said bills. It is submitted by the complainant that though he had repeatedly requested the opposite party to provide a password to secure the connection from any unauthorized usage or access by outsiders, opposite parties failed or refused to provide the same which caused a lot of inconvenience, suffering, mental tension in the usage of Internet facility which ultimately resulted in the complainant discontinuing the subscription with effect from 06.02.2006. It is further submitted by the complainant that due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties he had sustained loss of Rs. 210.80 for the month of January 2006, Rs. 249/- being the cost of the modem. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to refund the excess amount of Rs. 210.80 for the month of January 2005, Rs. 249/- being the cost of the Internet modem and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. Opposite parties filed version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the averment made in para 1 to 4 of the complaint are admitted, that para 5 to 19 of the complaint are not correct, that opposite parties made some waivers after deducting some charges for using its service, that bills issued by opposite parties are correct, that as the system issued by opposite parties is a very secured one, there is no necessity for a password as demanded by the complainant, that opposite parties disconnected the connection with effect from 06.02.2006 as requested by the complainant. The reliefs claimed by the complainant are not allowable. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The points that arise for consideration are:- Whether the opposite party has collected excess amount from the complainant? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and costs?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P18 and complainant has been cross examined by opposite parties. In rebuttal opposite parties have not filed affidavit or any documents. Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly complainant availed the telephone connection and the Internet service from the opposite parties. It has been the very case of the complainant that he was not provided with any password or security feature to control unauthorized access to the Internet by outsiders. It has also been the case of the complainant that while using the Internet facility it was noticed that even after disconnecting the connection using “disconnect” icon in the computer the Internet connection was not getting severed in the telephone instrument and it was metering. It has also been the case of the complainant that he has availed the Internet service as per the scheme of 0.40 ps per unit opted by him. But opposite parties issued bill for the month of August, September and November at higher rates, that on taking up the matter with opposite parties, they admitted the excess charging and waived Rs. 323.60, Rs. 373/- and Rs. 478.50 from the bills concerned. Opposite parties in their version have admitted that they have waived some amount from the bills concerned to avoid further complaints. It has been contended by opposite parties that the bills issued by opposite parties are correct. Further it is contended by opposite parties that there is no necessity for a password. Further it is admitted by opposite parties that connection was disconnected with effect from 06.02.2006. Ext. P1 is the copy of the temporary receipt dated 11.06.2005 for Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant. As per Ext. P4 tariff plans the Internet access charge is 0.40 ps. Per minute. As per Ext. P5 bill dated 21.08.2005 it is seen that unit of consumption is 152. According to complainant the amount charged by opposite party is at the rate of Rs. 3.03 per unit and the bill issued by opposite party is erroneous. Ext. P5 (b) is the copy of the bill dated 21.09.2005. Ext. P8 is the copy of the bill dated 21.11.2005. The above said bills challenged by the complainant and opposite parties admitted the error and some amount was waived from the concerned bills thereby it would appear that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising the said bills. Ext. P9 is the copy of the bill dated 21.01.2006. According to complainant opposite party has collected an excess amount of Rs. 210.80 as per Ext. P9 bill alleging that opposite party has assessed excess Internet usage of 531 units from the bill for the month of January 2006. It is also admitted that opposite parties changed the telephone instrument 3 times. Complainant has been cross examined by opposite parties. Nothing was elicited from him to shake the deposition of the complainant by way of affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Admission of excess amount by the opposite parties from the bills of August, September and November 2005 and repeated replacement of telephone instrument by the opposite parties and absence of evidence in support of the version accompanied by any documents will show that the contention raised by the complainant in the complaint is correct which would indicate there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It remains uncertain why opposite parties made some waivers from the disputed bills. According to opposite parties they have done it in order to avoid further complaints from the customer. That cannot be considered genuine. If complainant has used Internet as stated in the bill definitely opposite parties would demand the said amount and they would not dance to the tune of the complainant. In this case opposite parties have waived some amount from the disputed bills. Though complainant has challenged the bill for the month of January 2006, opposite party was silent on it. In the absence of any evidence in support of the bill for the month of January 2006 on the part of the opposite parties we think that the allegation raised by the complainant with respect to that bill is also genuine. Taking the over all situation, we are of the view that opposite parties have committed deficiency in service which ultimately resulted in the complainant discontinuing the subscription with effect from 06.02.2006 for which complainant is entitled to compensation. Taking into consideration of the totality of circumstances we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is allowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation. In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation to the complainant along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which Rs. 5,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% per year. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of November 2010. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER jb S.K. SREELA : MEMBER C.C. No. 215/2006 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Nair Ajith Krishnan II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Copy of temporary receipt dated 11.06.2005 for Rs. 1,000/-. P2 - Copy of bill details dated 21.06.2005. P3 - Copy of Fixed Wireless Phone Data Kit. P4 - Copy of tariff plans. P5 - Copy of bill details No. 117721658 dated 21.08.2005 P5(a) - Copy of split up details of calls and charges. P5(b) - Copy of bill No. 125944679 dated 21.09.2005 with split up details of calls & charges. P6 - Copy of the letter dated 04.06.2005 addressed to opposite party. P7 - Copy of bill No. 133294723 dated 21.10.2005. P8 - Copy of the bill No. 139932703 dated 21.11.2005 with split up details. P9 - Copy of the bill No. 154563272 dated 21.01.2006 P10 - Copy of letter to disconnected. P11 - Copy of the e-mail dated 06.02.2006. P12 - Copy of the bill No. 161896717 dated 21.02.2006. P13 - Copy of notice dated 14.02.2006. P14 - Copy of acknowledgement cards and postal receipts. P15 - Copy of legal notice dated 23.06.2006. P16 - Copy of reply dated 03.07.2006. P17 - Copy of e-mail. P18 - Copy of e-mail. III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL
PRESIDENT jb
| | [ Smt. Beena Kumari. A] Member[ Sri G. Sivaprasad] PRESIDENT[ Smt. S.K.Sreela] Member | | 
