Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1484/2009

Vinay Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Tata Communications Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Oct 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1484/09                            Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Vinay Garg,

KP-289, Maurya Enclave,

Pitampura, Delhi-34

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

TATA Communications Ltd.,

Bangla Sahib Road, New Delhi-110001

Also at:

G.K Part-I,

Opp. Savitri Cinema, New Delhi

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The case of the complainant is that he had an internet connection account no.Acc000109071 with OP It is alleged that OP on 15.04.09 informed complainant that his limit of use has exceeded by 80% and he should deposit Rs.30,507/- immediately and net was disabled. He made enquiries and found that actual amount was of Rs.4,133/- but due to system error it showed big outstanding. It being a small amount he paid. Yet after four days, he found his connection again disabled, and he was shown outstanding of Rs.29,220/-. He questioned the OP, on which OP admitted the mistake, and actual amount of Rs.3,080/- was admitted, which he paid. Yet again in May 2009, similar disabled happened, and he was given a bill of Rs.32,313/- as against normal bill of Rs.7,50/- or so. On his protest, connection was disabled, OP started threatening calls etc. He met senior officials. His net was disabled. He seeks compensation for the deficiency, harassment along with non use of internet, agony and sough directions to stop threatening calls.

The OP in its reply stated that usage has gradually increased, and therefore outstanding has grown. On fact, it admitted the facts of mistake by OP, in inflated raising bills two times and disablement and admitted charges of charged much less amount.

We have considered the reply & evidence of both the parties and heard the submissions. It is seen from the material that complainant repeatedly sent e-mails, about his difficulty and problem. However, OP never once told him that his usage was increasing despite a limit. OP has also not produced anything like data on record to show increasing usage. It has simply taken a plea without supporting evidence or even once informing complainant of this. Even-otherwise, the question raised is, once limit is reached why usage is allowed to be continued? In our view, in any case, it is fault of OP.

In the circumstances, we find OP grossly deficient, and direct it to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment, deficiency due to inflated bills and Rs.10,000/- for disabling of net on false grounds and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 29.10.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER