IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE : Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT
Tmt Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI MEMBER
F.A.NO.110/2017
(Against order in CC.NO.82/2012 on the file of the DCDRC, Chengalpattu)
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JANUARY 2022
1. M/s. Tata Teleservics Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager
13th Floor, Prince Info City 2, 283, 284
Old Mahabalipuram Road
Kandhanchavadi, Chennai – 600 096
2. M/s. Tata Teleservices Pvt.,
Rep. by its Managing Director
13th Floor, Prince Info City 2, 283, 284 M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh
Old Mahabalipuram Road Counsel for
Kandhanchavadi, Chennai – 600 096 Appellants /1 & 2 Opposite parties
Vs.
M/s. RIB Matches Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director
Syed Beer,
No.54, 3rd Floor, Mosque Complex (In person)
L.B.Road, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020 Respondent/ Complainant
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.17.2.2016 in CC.No.82/2012.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:
ORDER
JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT
1. This appeal has been filed as against the order dt.17.2.2016 in CC.No.82/2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chengalpattu, directing the appellants/ opposite parties herein to restore the Teleservices and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service alongwith cost.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:
The complainant had availed the services of the opposite parties for level DID PRI on a monthly rent of Rs.10000/- Assigned credit limit of R.15000/- as per A/c. No.909589304 for Telephone No.44-66090909 and the same was activated on 13.9.2011. The bill cycle is 17th of every month/ 15th to 14th of every month. The complainant was paying the monthly rental bill of Rs.10000/- together with taxes regularly, though the actual usage was less. All of a sudden the service was de-activated without giving any notice, and the complainant was under the impression that he had crossed Rs.15000/- credit limit. Therefore complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10000/- and requested the opposite party to reactivate the service, and the same was activated on the next day. After receipt of payment from the complainant on 20.1.2012, again the telephone connection was disconnected, and failed to send the bill for the period from 15.12.2011 to 14.1.2012. Again he contacted the customer care unit, where he was informed that he had heavily used the telephone connection. The opposite party failed to restore the connection till 5.2.2012. Therefore the complainant suffered heavy loss and thus he sent email to the opposite parties stating that if they were not reconnect the telephone connection, legal action will be initiated. Then onlythe telephone connection was restored. Thereafter they sent regular bill dt.17.1.2012 for the bill period 15.12.2011 to 14.1.2012 for an excessive and false amount of Rs.197796.42/-, as if the complainant had made calls to Egypt, Cayman Island, Azerbaijan Republic, Kanary Island, Poland, Bosnia, Hersegovia, Virginia Island, Bulgaria etc., for which the complainant had not made any calls, nor he has any business dealings in those countries. The complainant had made calls only to the places in India and Saudi Arabia and UAE. If the complainant crosses the limit of Rs.15000/- the opposite parties can very well disconnect the telephone. But because of the negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant had received a bill for the heavy amount, which the complainant is not liable to pay. In this regard, the complainant filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Crime Police and the FIR has been registered and the copy of the FIR was also forwarded to the opposite party. But the opposite parties have resorted to deactivate the telephone line from 1.12.2011, due to which the complainant had suffered financial loss both physically and mentally. Hence the complaint is filed by the complainant praying for a direction to activate/ restore the tele services bearing No.44-66090909, which was deactivated on 1.12.2012 and to pay a sum of Rs.620000/- towards compensation alongwith cost.
3. By resisting the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have filed their version stating that the service has been availed by the complainant on monthly rental of Rs.10000/-. Initially the credit limit was Rs.1500/-. On the request of the complainant the credit limit was increased to Rs.15000/-, Rs.22100/- and Rs.24000/- respectively. The usual procedure is that the complainant will call the customer to pay the arrears till the due date of payment, since the customer has not paid the amount on the due date, the company will bar the services. In this case also the services were barred for the non-payment of the bill of Rs.11130/- from 15.11.2011 to 14.12.2011. The staff in the tele calling had tried to reach the complainant for the collection of the bill amount, for which the mobile of the complainant was not reachable. Due to non-payment of the bill amount, service was disconnected, thereafter the complainant had paid Rs.10000/- on 22.12.2011. After receiving the amount, the service was activated immediately though the huge amount was pending. The service was disconnected again for the heavy usage of Rs.197796.42/-. But the complainant denied the usage. The customer care informed that the said telephone was used for making international calls. After all the deduction, a credit note given to the complainant’s account showing that there was pending amount of Rs.179691/- as on 17.1.2012. The user ID and password was given to the complainant was hacked by someone else and they have made all these calls, is nothing but a false statement. The opposite parties have fully secured and having foolproof systems to deliver telecom services. The story of the complainant is not at all believable. The services was withdrawn by the complainant on 11.12.2012 vide SR-339577079. The opposite parties are not at all responsible for the business loss of the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. In order to prove their respective cases, the parties have filed their proof affidavits, alongwith documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A8 on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to B3 on the side of the opposite parties.
5. After evaluating the documents and on hearing the submissions on either side, the District Commission had come to the conclusion by holding that the complainant had proved the case that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and thus directed them to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh as compensation alongwith cost and also directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to activate the tele service without any demand to pay the amount.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both side, perused the materials placed on record and passed the following order:
7. The dispute is with regard to the bill dt.13.1.2012 for a sum of Rs.197796.42. It is an admitted case that the appellant agreed to provide service to the Respondent at the monthly credit limit of Rs.15000/-. The appellant’s / opposite parties would submit that the credit limit was subsequently enhanced to Rs.24000/-. Inspite of that they have allowed the complainant to use the telephone for usage upto Rs.197796.42/-.
It is the specific case of the complainant that the call details would show that as if the complainant had made calls to Egypt, Cayman Island, Azerbaijan Republic, Kanary Island, Poland, Bosnia, Hersegovia, Virginia Island, Bulgaria etc., but there is no need for them to make calls to such countries and they do not have any business transaction with them. Therefore it is clear that some hacker intruded into the service and used the telephone line for various countries by compromising their server and that hacker played mischief and made calls to the said countries. In this regard they have also lodged a complaint before J5 Police station.
Whereas, according to the appellant/ opposite parties, the opposite parties equipments are well secured having full proof to telecom service. The Respondent/ complainant’s friends or relatives might have used the telephone with the knowledge of the Respondent/ complainant. Therefore the complainants are liable to pay for the usage of the disputed calls. But without considering these aspects the District Commission on erroneous reasoning, as if the appellants have not taken any steps to solve the problems, as if the issue raised with regard to the particular bill, and on the presumption that the culprits have used the telephone connection who had made calls to such countries, had come to the conclusion that the opposite parties had failed to prove their defence. The reason assigned by the opposite parties had fastening liability against the opposite parties and is without any basis. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the District Commission is liable to be set aside. The direction of the District Commission to restore the connection without asking for the bill amount is not legally sustainable. Since there is no deficiency in service on their part, the question of awarding compensation does not arise.
10. Having considered the submissions made, we are of the considered opinion that there are disputed facts with regard to the bill raised by the opposite parties, therefore it cannot be decided before the consumer forum in a summary way. First of all it has to be found out as to who had used the phone, whether it is by the hackers or by some employees in the office of the opposite party? The above facts can be decided only by adducing detailed evidence by providing opportunity for cross examination. Unless this is decided, the question of granting relief does not arise. Since the issue cannot be decided in a summary proceedings before the consumer commission, the complainant can approach the civil court for getting relief. Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be allowed.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Chengalpattu in CC.No.82/2012 dt.17.2.2016, and the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to cost in this appeal.
S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI R. SUBBIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
