Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
1. Sh.Vikrant Kapoor, complainant has brought the instant complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he has obtained three numbers of connect Landline phone Ist No. is 0183-5009000, 2nd No. is 0183-5009900 and third number is 0183-5002400. Complainant has been availing the services of the opposite parties for more than 10 years. The said company changes phone plans on its own without customer consent . The complainant current plan is Talk 439 in which he has charged rental accordingly. But after a month, the company has changed plan with increased rental from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/-. When the complainant called the Executives helpline 1920 of connect, they said sorry and changed back the plan. Complainant phone No. 0183-5009900 whose plan “Classic 439 New” remained same from past more than one year, was changed by company to “Classic 549” i.e. difference of Rs. 120/-. For telephone No. 0183-5002400 whose plan was “Classic 439 New” was changed to “DSL Classic 699” i.e. difference of Rs. 260/- . This plan was changed without the consent of the complainant. When the complainant called company and complained about the same, they gave official request No. 25662486 and talked to Executive Gaurav on July 2,2015 to change plan immediatelty back to his original plan. But the plan was not changed . then again complainant talked with Mr. Rohit on request No. 10855603 and then the plan got changed. This practice is going on with No. 0183-5009900. When the complainant received bill, he came to know that the opposite parties are again doing this practice by changing talk time. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
(a) Opposite party company should stop changing plan on their own and then blaming the customer that they have made changes;
(b) Opposite party should stop making unsolicited calls from their executives to change plan or upgrading modem;
(c ) Opposite party should refund the difference of plan change as mentioned on Numbers 0183-5009900 and 0183-5002400;
(d) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- ne also awarded to the complainant.
(e) Cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- be also awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer. The complainant is running a school under the name and style “Angel Public School” and the telephone connections in question are installed in the name of said school and the bills raised by the opposite parties are also in the name of school i.e. Angel Public School ; that the complaint is legally not maintainable as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant against the Opposite Parties; that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant to get undue advantage from the Opposite Parties; that the complainant has complainant has created a false story in his complaint to mislead this Forum by concocting and distorting the facts and circumstances of the present case; that the false complaint has been filed by the complainant by alleging false allegations; that the opposite party being service provider provides better facilities to its customers and in this regard, whenever company launches new plan options, it called to its esteemed customers and offer the same and on the request of the customers, the opposite party change the plan as per requirement of the customer. In the present case also, as per choice given and accepted by the complainant , the company change plan at regular intervals . Bills were raised by the opposite party every month and the complainant paid the amount to the opposite parties without any protest ; that valid and legal bill amount has been recovered by t he opposite parties from the complainant on actual usages and services availed by the complainant. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint are denied. It was admitted that complainant is having three telephone connections in his name . It was denied that opposite parties adapted malpractices in billing since so many years. It was denied that opposite parties changes phone plans on its own without customer asking them to do so. It is pertinent to mention over here that whenever answering opposite parties change the plan of any customer, the customer is duly informed by the answering opposite parties with respect to change of plan telephonically and after consent of customer the plan is changed. In the present case also, the information regarding change of plan was duly given to the complainant . It is also pertinent to mention here that earlier company provided internet speed to the complainant @ 256 kbps, but with the passage of time better service had been provided by the company to its customers and company had charged according to the better services from the complainant. It was submitted that in order to provide the best services, the answering opposite parties used to inform the customer with respect to plan and upgradation. The complainant was also duly informed regarding the change of plan and only after the consent the plan was changed . It was submitted that the opposite parties have sent the bills to the complainant with increase in rental/plan, but neither any complaint or objection was ever raised by the complainant to the opposite parties and till date nor any written request has ever been received by the complainant to change of plan. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case, Sh.Nitin Madaan,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 1.8.2015 Ex.C-2, copy of summary statement Ex.C-3, copy of bill dated 1.7.2015 Ex.C-4, copy of summary statement Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Ravinder Singh Ex.OP1, copy of Annexure A,B & C Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4, cop of power of attorney Ex.OP5, copy of RTI letter Ex.OP6, copy of plan history Ex.OP7 and Ex.OP8 and closed their evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record as well as written synopsis of arguments submitted on behalf of both the parties.
6. It has been vehemently contended by the complainant that he had obtained three connections in his name and had been regularly paying the bills issued by the opposite party from time to time. But in the recent few years, the opposite party has started changing the tariff plan on its own before the expiry of term of six months minimum period fixed by TRAI . It has further been contended on behalf of the complainant that the complainant had opted a plan for No. 5002400 named “TALK 439” in which rental was Rs. 100/- but only after a month of subscribing to the said plan, the opposite party had changed the plan to “Classic 699”. Similar is the position to other No. 5009900. The complainant requested so many times to the opposite party not to call before expiry of six months of a tariff plan but they are not ready to listen to the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant has submitted that opposite parties are changing the tariff plan on its own and that too before the expiry of term of six months minimum period fixed by TRAI regarding tariff plans . In this regard ld.counsel for the complainant has relied upon “Consumers’ Handbook on Telecommunications Chapter 6 vide which “A tariff plan once offered by a service provider shall be available to a subscriber for a minimum period of six months from the date of enrolment of the subscriber to that plan”. The Consumers’ Handbook further provides that “ For any tariff plan, the service provider is free to reduce tariffs at any time. However, no tariff item can be increased by the service provider within the validity of the plan”. It is the case of the complainant that the Opposite Parties are deficient in service and they have been harassing. complainant without any rhyme or reason. As such, the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for.
7. However, from the appreciation of the evidence on record and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the bills sent to the consumer were in the name of Vikrant Kapoor, 5-B, Angels Public School, Old Jail Road, Amritsar . As such the said telephone connections have been used by the complainant for his business purpose and the complainant is not consumer as per definition of Consumer Protection Act. As such, the complainant is not eligible to maintain the complaint. Reliance in this regard has been placed on M/s.N.L.P.Organics Pvt. Ltd. Bhiwadi, District Alwar Vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Indian Bank, Chennai and others in Original Petition No.158 of 1999 decided on 14.7.2014, in which it has been held that where the complainant has transit business, he can not be said to be a consumer and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score only. It is the further case of the opposite Parties that opposite parties could enhance the rental charges as per Subscriber Agreement Form, which clearly says that “Connect is entitled to change, vary, add and withdraw any service/ supplementary service and/ or to vary its charges relating thereto at any time, in its sole discretion and/ or under TRAI regulations and guidelines.” Since the complainant is bound by terms and conditions of the agreement, therefore, the company was within its authority and power to change the plan after every 6 months and in the exercise of that power, the company has been changing the plan of the complainant after every 6 months. Even letter Ex.OP-6 also states that tariff plans being offered have to be for a minimum period of six months. The complainant has failed to prove on record that the tariff plan was changed before the expiry of six months as he did not mention any date in his complaint to show that when the tariff plan was issued and when it was changed. Rather the complainant himself has placed on record Consumers’ Handbook on Telecommunications regarding tariff plan under which the tariff plans being offered shall be available to a subscriber for a minimum period of six months. So the opposite parties have changed the tariff plan as per guidelines of TRAI.
8. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 24.1.2017. (Anoop Sharma) Presiding Member
/R/ (Rachna Arora)
Member
