DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Vivek Sharma, #1453-A, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

Principal General Manager, Telephone Exchange Building, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:      None for the Complainant.

Sh. Arvind Rajothia, Adv. for the OP.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.             Complainant (hereinafter referred to as CC for short) has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as OP for short), on the grounds that CC purchased an EVDO Card from the OP by paying an amount of Rs.3152/-, vide Receipt No. 32261, dated 2.6.2010 and had opted for unlimited plan of RS.750/- p.m. photocopy of receipt attached with the complaint.  Since the very beginning, after the purchase of the said EVDO Card, the strength of internet signal was very poor and hence, the CC was unable to use it properly, even for a single day.

                The CC has alleged that at the time of sale of the said EVDO Card, OP had promised bandwidth speed of upto 2.4 mbps, but it could only achieve a bandwidth speed of 50 kbps. The CC reported the matter to the OP repeatedly, but no response was available from the side of the OP. CC further, alleges that OP has failed to provide the services as promised at the time of the sale of the said card.

                The CC has further claimed that though he has not used the said card even for a single day but the OP has sent him a whopping bill of Rs.3044/- vide No.113334129 dated 7.7.2010. CC is aggrieved by the act of the OP and has prayed for a relief of refund of amount Rs.3152/- along with the compensation of Rs.50,000/- with an interest @12% p.a., along with unspecified litigation charges.  

2.              On notice, OP filed their version.

                The OP has taken preliminary objection to the present complaint, on the ground that the same is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. However, no reason is attributed qua the maintainability of the present complaint.

                On merits, OP has admitted the contents of Para No. 1, 2 & 3 of the present complaint, the same being a matter of record.  In Para 4 of the reply, OP has contested that the data card in question was used by the CC w.e.f. 3.6.2010 to 29.6.2010 and during this period, an approx. 7.7. GB data was used.

                In reply to the allegation of not attending to the complaint to the CC, OP has submitted that the JTO and TTA of WLL Section of their Department visited the CC’s house and found that except for one room, the card was working normally. 

                In reply to the Para 7 of the complaint, OP has further submitted that the said EVDO Card was disconnected on 29.6.2010 and that the EVDO Card has not been returned to the OP and further, that there is no provision of returning the Card. Hence, the question of refunding of the amount does not arise.  The OP has further submitted the detail of the use of internet services by the CC by bringing on record the detail and the same is annexed as Annex. R-1.  It is from this detail that the OP has contested the fact about the card being working properly. Hence, OP prays for the dismissal of the complaint on the above mentioned grounds.

3.              Parties led their respective evidences.

4.              As the CC failed to appear on the last date of hearing i.e. 4.10.2011, the arguments of the counsel for the OP were heard. Hence, we have proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), vide order dated 04.10.2011.

5.              Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the OP, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the OP, we allow the complaint on the following grounds:-

        [a]        The CC has specifically alleged in his present complaint that he has not been able to use the EVDO card purchased by him from the OP by paying Rs.3152/-, even for a single day, as the signal required for its operation was weak.  The OP has failed to bring on record the status with regard to the availability of the strength of internet signal at the premises of the CC. 

        [b]        The CC while having alleged that he made repeated requests to the OP to rectify the said fault, but OP in its response though had mentioned that one JTO and TTA of the Department having visited the house of the CC, but failed to file an affidavit on their behalf in supports of its claim. Hence, the defense taken by the OP is weak with regard to the fact that it had made any effort to rectify the said fault.

        [c]        The CC has also objected to the raising of the bill of Rs.3044/- vide No. 113334129, dated 7.7.2010, even though the said EVDO card was not being used. The OP has completely ignored this aspect and there is no reply qua this allegation in their version. It is important to visit the details with regard to the said bill reference no. 113334129, as submitted by the OP [Annex.R-1], as on the basis of this detail the alleged bill was raised by the OP against the CC. 

                  It is very important to note that the said detail does not bear any title i.e. with regard to the name of the subscriber nor the address of the subscriber. Furthermore, the detail starts with the opening date of 06/03/2010, and runs into as many as 12 pages, ending on the date 06/29/2010 i.e. it belongs to the period from 03 June, 2010, upto 29 June, 2010.Whereas the CC has claimed that the said EVDO CARD is not working.  At the end of the detail, the bill amount is mentioned as 401750. This figure does not clearly show the denomination whether the said figures pertains to Rs.4,01,750/- or 401750 paise, whereby it is difficult to comprehend as to what is the actual information that can be derived from these details  and on what calculations the OP had raised a bill of Rs.3044/- on the date 7.7.2010, though the same is attributed to reference no. 113334129.  In the light of above facts, we feel that the detail submitted by the OP does not belong to the CC’s account. Furthermore the said document does not bear the signatures or the official seal of the authority under whose hand the same has been generated. Hence, cannot be believed and deserves to be ignored completely. 

        [D]        In the present circumstances, the OP has failed to establish that whether the said equipment EVDO card was ever used by the CC, even for a single day, after its sale, thus, qualifying them in raising a demand of Rs.3044/-, vide bill dated 7.7.2010.  The OP has also failed to bring on record the copy of the bill or any official record from where it could be summed up that the bill reference no. 113334129 and account number 150297906, as mentioned in detail [Annexure R-1] belong to the CC.

        [E]        The OP while contesting the claim of the CC has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004, decided on 1.9.2009 titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr., wherein the telephone connection of the Respondent was disconnected for non-payment of telephone bill and held the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction, as there is a special remedy available in Section 7B of Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills.  The OP on being inquired about the status of the said equipment in question, sold by them, failed to satisfy the Forum whether the said equipment also falls in the definition of a “Telephone” or that EVDO CARD is itself a telephone, as per the definition mentioned in the Telegraph Act, 1885, so as to attract the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as held in the above titled case. 

6.              Hence, on the above said observations, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.3152/- as charged while selling the said EVDO card.  We further direct the OP to cancel the bill of Rs.3044/- dated 7.7.2010 and pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1500/-, within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which OP shall be liable for an interest @ 18% p.a. on the entire amount that stands due against them thereafter.

                    Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19.10.2011                                                                     

Sd/-

                    (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)