Delhi

North East

CC/156/2015

Rajender Singh Tomar - Complainant(s)

Versus

MTNL - Opp.Party(s)

20 Nov 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. 156/15

               

In the matter of:

	Rajender Singh Tomar S/o Late Megh Singh R/o: I-26/1, Gali No. 10 Bharampuri, Delhi- 110053.	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	The Area Manager M.T.N.L, Community Hall Premises C Block, Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110053.   The D.J.M M.T.N.L Telephone Exchange Building Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.	Opposite Parties

 

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

30.04.2015 20.11.2018 20.11.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

ORDER

1. Brief facts set out in the present complaint are that the complainant had a landline telephone connection bearin no. 22181205 with internet installed therein by OPs since August 2011. Till 2012, the complainant was regularly receiving bills for the said connection which were paid by him on timely basis. However, the said connection went out of order at regular intervals for which complaints were logged on number 198 of OP and the bills for the same were also not sent on time by OP for which reason payments could not be made for weeks resulting in disconnection of the number. The complainant had to every time visit OP office and request for duplicate bills for which he paid Rs. 20/- each for late payment for 26 bills to OP amounting to Rs. 520/- resulting in mental & physical harassment and wastage of precious time of complainant. The complainant has further stated that the connection is dead since February 2015 for which he had visited the OP office and got duplicate bills for January-February 2015 against payment of Rs. 20/- each and then paid the said arrears immediately. When the complainant tried to lodge a written complaint with OP regarding the aforementioned dysfunctional land line, no senior officer of OP entertained him or even provided him with a complaint register and rather misbehaved with the complainant for which complainant had to call the police through PCR. The same day i.e. 26.03.2015 in evening the complainant was informed telephonically by OP’s Chief Accounts Officer that on checking their computer it was found that the complainant bills don’t get printed which surprised the complainant since he had not given any written request or notice for the same. The complainant logged a written complaint with OP in this regard on 27.03.2015 but no action was taken by the OP. The complainant again gave a written complaint dated 04.07.2015 to OP regarding his in operational number against which the OP vide letter dated 07.04.2015 to the complainant apprised him that his telephone has had been registered under e-bill service and bills were sent on his email ID. However, the complainant had never given any instruction for activation of e-bill facility vide email to OP. Lastly, complainant submitted that his telephone has been dead from February 2015 till March 2015 but still OP has raised March billing vide bill dated 08.04.2015 for a sum of Rs. 752/- on the complainant for the period when the phone was not even working/ functional. Therefore, vide the present complaint, the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the OP causing him mental, financial & physical hardship has prayed for issuance of directions to OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and refund of Rs. 752/- (March 2015 billing) and Rs. 520/- (late payment charges @Rs. 20/- each for 26 bills) to the complainant. Complainant has attached copy of complainants dated 31.10.2012, 30.03.2013, 14.08.2013 & 09.12.2013 to OP, police complaint to S.H.O., P.s. Bhajanpura dated 26.03.2015, complainants dated 27.03.2015 & 10.04.2015  to OP, reply dated 07.04.2015 by OP intimating activation of e-bill service and copy of bill dated 08.04.2015 for billing month of March 2015 for Rs. 752/-.
2. Notice was issued to OP on 06.05.2015. OP appeared and filed its written statement on 07.08.2015. In which OP took the preliminary objection that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal 7687/2004 titled General Manager Telecom V/s. M. Krishnan and Anr. as well as Revision Petition No. 4507/2009 titled MTNL V/s S.P. Shukla passed by Hon’ble NCDRC, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the matter of telecommunication is governed by a special act and any dispute arising in respect of telephone, apparatus, line, bill etc are to be determined by Arbitration u/s 7 B of Indian Telegraph Act barring the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. The OP submitted that it had granted rebate to the complainant for the faulty history of telephone for March-April 2015 accumulating Rs. 788/- which were adjusted in two tranches of Rs. 558/- adjusted in bill dated 08.04.2015 & Rs. 230/- adjusted and credited in bill dated 08.08.2015 and therefore, there was no deficiency in service on part of the OP. OP further submitted that the subject telephone was disconnected only once on 17.12.2012 for non-payment of bill but was restored on very next day on payment but admitted that the broadband was not working during March-April 2015 for which rent rebate Rs. 788/- was given accordingly to the complainant. The OP further submitted that on the request of complainant , the OP had informed the complainant vide letter dated 07.04.2015 elaborating the period of generation of bill and time for making payment that the e-bill facility will be withdrawn and the bill would be sent by post regularly. The OP controverted the allegation of the complainant of not having entertained his complaint on 26.03.2015 and not providing complaint register on grounds that on given day all the officers of OP were busy in meeting called by GM (TY) but the complainant threatened the staff of OP exercising his influence as General Secretary of Shiv Sena Hindustan. OP lastly submitted that it is not liable for the subscriber’s (complainant) loss of business, profit, revenue or goodwill, anticipated savings, use or contracts or for any indirect consequential loss, howsoever it arises and that the OP was always prompt to rectify the problems of complainant and gave rent rebate for faulty period and therefore, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP entitling complainant to any compensation whatsoever and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant in rebuttal to the defence taken by the OP in which the complainant denied the plea taken by OP of this forum having no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint on ground that complainant is a consumer of OP which has acted in deficient manner by rendering deficiency in service which is well proven by the rent rebate of Rs. 788/- given by OP to complainant for faulty billing month of March 2015. The complainant reiterated having paid Rs. 20/- each for 26 duplicate bills to the OP amounting to Rs. 520/- and submitted that the subject land line phone and internet connection has been continuously out of order despite repeated complaints written and verbal to OP by the complainant giving rise to present complaint.
4.  Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant reiterating his grievance against the OP and has attached copy of complaint dated 17.06.2015, 23.06.2015 to OP, letter dated 31.07.2015 by OP to complainant regarding intimation of rent rebate approval of  Rs. 788/- for the period of March 2015, copy of duplicate bills dated 08.04.2015 and 08.08.2015 against which bills above mentioned rebate was given.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit filed by OP in reiteration of its defence taken in written statement and exhibited computer generated email address of complainant alongwith its letter dated 07.04.2015 for e- bills registration.
6. Written arguments were filed by the complainant as well as OP in reiteration of their respective grievance / defence. Complainant annexed complaint dated 17.06.2015, 23.06.2015 and covering letter by OP dated 31.07.2015 in response to his letter dated 30.04.2015 for rent rebate for broad band for the telephone no. 22181205 for the period March 2015 to June 2015 to the tune of Rs. 788/-.

OP in its written arguments reiterated the rent rebate given to the complainant during the faulty billing months of March – April 2015 by cancelling bill dated 08.04.2015 and adjustments given to the tune of Rs. 558/- and Rs. 230/- for April and August 2015 bills.

7. At the final stage proceedings, since the dispute was only limited to the issue of activation of E-bill service by OP on the telephone connection of the complainant which was disputed by the complainant as never having being requested for activation and for which he was illegally charged Rs. 520/- towards late payment charges due to non-payment of bills owing to non-receipt of the same on time, this Forum had directed the OP to place on record any correspondence or written request made by the complainant for E-bill activation as defence taken by the OP in its letter dated 07.04.2015 alongwith an e-mail ID of complainant. The OP during the course of final arguments, admitted to having no such correspondence or instruction written or otherwise from the complainant for activation of E-bill service on his telephone number by stating that there was no such documentary proof available in its records. This issue therefore is decided in favour of the complainant as the allegation of wrongful activation of E-bill has gone unrebutted and we therefore are of the opinion that the OP has been deficient in service in charging Rs. 520/- towards late payment charges from the complainant owing to its own error of not sending the bills on time and levying late payment charges on the complainant for the same due to which the complainant had to face hardship by repeatedly visiting OP office to get duplicate bills every month and incur late payment charges. Since the rent rebate of Rs. 788/- for the faulty billing month of March 2015 was giving by the OP in August 2015 after filing of the present complaint by the complainant,  this act of OP of raising bills when the telephone was out of order / dead even though addressed at the early / nascent stage of the proceeding cannot be ignored and is also a deficiency of service. 
8. The judgment relied upon by OP of the Hon’ble Apex Court of General Manager Telecom Vs M. Krishnan is not applicable in the present case. Since according to Section 3 of CPA, the Act is not in derogation of any other law and is an addition to or additional remedy besides other existing laws. Moreover, arbitration clause is not a bar to entertain complaint under CPA. 
9. We therefore holding OP guilty of deficiency of service direct the OP to refund Rs. 520/- to the complainant towards late payment charges wrongly levied by it on the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental and physical harassment undergone by the complainant due to its deficient services.
10.  Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.     
11.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
12.   File be consigned to record room.
13.   Announced on 20.11.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member