| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA RBT/Consumer Complaint No.234 of 2018 Date of institution: 09.04.2018 Date of Decision: 25.04.2022 Satbir Singh, aged about 43 years son of S. Paramjit Singh, resident of House No.283-C, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana. ….Complainant Versus
- Quadrant Televentures Limited, Head Office: Phase VII, Inudstrial Area, Mohali, through its Director/M.D/General Manager
- Quadrant Televentures Limited., 407 3rd Floor, Elite Arcade, The Mall, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Officer Incharge.
……..Opposite Parties Complaint under Consumer Protection Act Quorum: Shri Ranjit Singh, President. Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member Present: Sh. Iqbal Singh, Advocate, for complainant Sh. J.D. Singh Ahuja, Advocate, for OPs
Order dictated by :- Shri Ranjit Singh, President Order The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant availed the broadband services of the opposite parties through telephone No.0161-5053063. However, the service of the opposite parties were not satisfactory and upto the mark, as such, the complainant did not want to continue the services of the opposite parties any more. On 8.8.2017, the complainant wrote one request letter to the opposite parties to disconnect his above said broadband connection with immediate effect since he has availed the services of some other company. On the same very day, the complainant made the payment of entire outstanding dues to the opposite parties vide cheque No.000142 dated 8.8.2017 for a sum of Rs.2,123/- drawn on HDFC Bank Limited. It is further averred that the authorized officer of the opposite parties namely Mr. Gurpreet Singh having mobile No.98880-39377 has executed a separate receipt to the effect that broadband connection of the complainant has been disconnected and full and finally payment has been received and it is clear upto date. Now nothing is due against the complainant in any manner whatsoever. However, the complainant has been receiving threatening messages from the opposite parties i.e. Connect broadband has initiated legal proceedings against the complainant due to non payment of Rs.6818/- account No.2683411. The complainant made several calls to the opposite parties to the representatives of the opposite parties and clarified the entire situation to them that account of the complainant stands cleared fully and finally upto date and now there is nothing outstanding against the complainant in any manner whatsoever, however, the officials of the opposite parties are not acceding to his genuine requests.The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:- - To withdraw their impugned demand so being illegally raised from the complainant by the Ops
- To pay compensation of Rs.51,000/- as damages for mental, physical and financial harassment caused to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses
- Any other additional or alternative relief to which the complainant may be found entitled under the circumstances of the present complaint may also be granted.
- Upon notice, the learned counsel for the OPs appeared and filed written reply taking preliminary objection; that the opposite party is a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956; that the present complaint is not maintainable in its present form and as such the same is liable to be dismissed; that the present compliant is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law to harass the answering opposite parties and is not maintainable; that the complainant has not approached this hon’ble forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Commission; that neither the complainant has enforceable cause of action to file the present complaint nor the complainant is entitled to sought relief against the answering opposite parties; that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in the eye of law and liable to be dismissed; that this Hon’ble forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the connection has been disconnect on January 2018 due to non payment of consecutive three bills since the company has right to disconnect the same for non payment of bill without any prior notice and there is no relationship of customer and service provider after disconnection, however, had there any dispute regarding the bills, the complainant shall have to intimate the opposite parties within seven days as per the terms and conditions of the bills, but no such intimation or dispute had ever been raised by the complainant in writing as per the terms and conditions. It is further stated that the complainant is bound by the terms and condition of the bill being accepted. After receiving of notice for recovery of outstanding bill amount, the complainant filed the present complaint which crystallized purely counter to the recovery and absolved himself from the liability to pay the outstanding billing amount for which the opposite parties have reserve its right to recover the same by filing separate proceedings. It is averred by the complainant that full and final settlement of bill amount was done vide receipt No.LU No. A 7350768 dated 8.8.2017 for Rs.2123/0 issued by the opposite party. In this regard, it is submitted that the said receipt itself show that this receipt is not valid for full and final settlement. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part has prayed for the dismissal of complaint in total.
- The complainant has tendered certain documents in the shape of evidence Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OPs has tendered certain documents in the shape of evidence.
- We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.
- The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the despite paying full and final payment to the op, op issued a recovery notice for outstanding bill amount whereas the complainant already paid the entire full and final payment to the ops and in this regard, one Gurpreet Singh, authorizing officer of the Ops had issued a receipt about the full and final payment. He further argued that the OPs harassed physically and mentally for illegal demand from the complainant. Lastly prayed to allow the present complaint and withdraw the impugned amount.
- The learned counsel for the OPs has also argued that the complainant has taken the broadband connection from the opposite parties. During the arguments, he denied that the service of the opposite parties were not satisfactory and upto the mark. Receipt shows by the complainant is not valid for full and final settlement. The opposite parties issued a NOC/settlement letter only on his letter had with authorized signatory signatures after receiving the full amount of bill and receiving the material provide to the customer for usage of the connection. Lastly prayed to dismiss the present complaint.
- It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant paid the amount to the OPs. In this case, the star document is Mark A, which shows that the complainant has disconnected the broadband connection after paying the full and final payment to the OPs on the said documents, one signatures has been given by one Sh. Gurpreet Singh with his mobile number. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs claimed that this receipt is not valid but the learned counsel for the OPs has not denied at any point neither in written reply nor in his arguments that Sh. Gurpreet Singh is not his official. Document placed on record by the complainant proves that the complainant has already paid the amount to the OPs. So, the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps and the complaint deserves to be allowed.
- In the light of discussion made above, the complaints stands allowed partly with the direction to the O.Ps. to withdraw the said recovery notice issued to the complainant.
- The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (RANJIT SINGH) Dated.25.04.2022 PRESIDENT
(RANVIR KAUR) MEMBER CC No.234 of 2018 Present:Sh. Iqbal Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant Sh. JD Singh Ahuja, Adv. for OPs Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands allowed partly. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room. Announced April,25 2022 (Ranjit Singh) President (Ranvir Kaur) Member | |
