Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/268

Munish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Quardrent Televenture Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

16 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 268 of 04.04.2016

Date of Decision            :   16.12.2016 

 

Mr.Munish Kumar s/o Shri. Kuldeep Kumar, aged 26 years c/o Chamber No.73, Civil Courts, Khanna, District Ludhiana (Punjab).

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Chairman and Director, Corporate Office: Quadrant Televentures Ltd.,(formerly known as HFCL Infotel Ltd.,) B-71, Phase-VII, Industrial Focal Point, Mohali-160055(Punjab).

2.Regd. Office: Quadrant Televentures Ltd.,(Formerly known as HFCL Infotel Ltd.) Autocars Compound, Adalat Road, Aurangabad-431005(Maharashtra).

3.Authorized dealer: S.N.Cable & Broadband Services Pvt.Ltd., SCF 29, Ist & 2^nd Floor, G.T.B.Market, Khanna-141401, District Ludhiana, Punjab.

 

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

MRS.          VINOD BALA, MEMBER

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER 

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         In person

For Op1 and OP2           :         Sh.J.D.Singh Ahuja, Advocate

For OP3                         :         Ex-parte.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that he claims himself to be a customer of Ops since from June, 2015 with account No.2643252 regarding phone connection No.ODSLS171651. Complainant was paying monthly rent to Ops of Rs.849/- excluding service tax in respect of the provided broadband service by OP3. Complainant received a text on his registered mobile number +91-94786-00044 on 12.3.2016 from Ops regarding the change of plan from monthly rental of Rs.849/- to Safe Rs.1099/-. That was done by Ops without any instructions from the complainant and as such, by pleading adoption of unfair trade practice, prayer made for directing Ops to pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment and agony and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- more claimed. When the complainant sent report on customer service number 0172-5050505, then the dealing person talked rudely by claiming that after receipt of call, the plan was activated on demand. However, that ascertain was not true and as such, it is claimed that Ops have cheated  the complainant by rendering deficient services. Op3 is the authorized dealer of OP1 and OP2.

2.                In written statement filed by Op1 and OP2 jointly, it is pleaded interalia as if  this Forum has no jurisdiction; complainant estopped by his act and conduct to file the present complaint; complaint filed for abusing the process of law; complainant has no cause of action and complaint is false, vexatious and frivolous. Besides, it is claimed that owing to suppression of material facts, complainant not entitled for equitable relief. In fact, the complainant approached OP for telephone/Internet connection in April, 2015 and on his request, plan 849UL concerning the connection was provided after explaining various tariff plans. On request and consent of the complainant, OP company installed telephone/internet connection with plan 849UL with internet speed of 1MBPS till 15 GB and thereafter, 512 KBPS unlimited download and activated. This was done after submitting  all the required     documents. Under that plan, the rental charges were of Rs.849/- plus service tax and other taxes. Complainant signed the SAF(Subscriber Agreement Form) at the time of availing these services and after understanding the terms and conditions of plan. As per the terms and conditions of SAF, OP company can revise the tariff plan at any time after installation of the telephone/internet connection, so as to provide the better services to the customers. The company can increase the tariff plan after giving information to the subscriber on his contact number or through email or through SMS or by telecalling. OP company is a reputed concern providing efficient services after engaging the staff, whose duties is to give telephone calls for giving information to the existing customers. On showing of unwillingness by the customer concerned, the plan provided as per choice of the customer. In case, a subscriber has objection regarding the change/migration of the tariff plan, then he can submit a request to the company regarding availing of previous existing plan. Tariff plan of the complainant was changed/migrated from plan 849UL to Safe 1099 as per above said manner. As the executive of OP company gave calls to the complainant and even sent SMS and email and as such, complainant was provided due information regarding changed tariff plan. Subsequently, as per request of the complainant, OP company registered earlier plan i.e. 849UL. New tariff plan Safe 1099 was activated on complainant’s number DSLS171651 for only three days i.e. for period from 12.3.2016 to 15.3.2016. However, thereafter earlier plan 849UL stood activated. Present complaint alleged to be filed with ulterior motive for harassing OP company and demanding money. OP company has not received any complaint regarding alleged complaint till date. There is no fault on the part of OP company and as such, question of rendering deficient service does not arise. Present complaint signifies the bill dispute only and as such, the same is filed for abusing the process of law. Services provided by telephone company are subject to Telephone Rules and License. Moreover, controversy can be got resolved through Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Op3 is ex-parte in this case.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 and OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Avinash Kumar, Sr.Executive along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely.

7.                It is vehemently contended by complainant that plan 849 was changed without his permission and consent or submitting any information and as such, unfair trade practice was adopted by Ops for charging excessive rent of Rs.1099/- in lieu of contracted one of Rs.849/-. However, that submission strongly opposed by counsel for OP1 and OP2 by contending that intimation on SMS was given to the complainant, but when he opted not for the portable scheme, then original scheme/plan was restored. Ex.C1 is the document showing as if billing plan is Safe 1099 with activation date of 28.4.2015. Bill Ex.C2 of amount of Rs.1018/- was sent to the complainant for period from 16.8.2015 to 15.9.2015 with monthly charges of Rs.849/-. Taxes of Rs.118.86P even claimed through this bill Ex.C2. So, this bill Ex.C2 establishes that services to the complainant provided under 849UL plan during period from 16.8.2015 to 15.9.2015. However, through bill Ex.C3, monthly charges of Rs.854.03P claimed along with taxes of Rs.123.83P for period from 16.2.2016 to 15.3.2016 and as such, virtually the complainant had been paying rental charges upto 15.3.2016 under monthly plan of 849UL. On the back side of Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 each, it is mentioned in clause no.5 that company may revive its charges at any time at its sole discretion and as such, in view of this clause, if monthly charges raised from Rs.849/- to Rs.854.03P excluding taxes, then no illegality committed by Ops in issue of bill Ex.C3.

8.                However, bill Ex.C4 shows as if amount of Rs.167.78P sought to be recovered from the complainant for availing tariff plan Safe 1099 for period from 12.3.2016 to 15.3.2016. This tariff plan Safe 1099 changed after sending SMS is the contention of counsel for OP1 and OP2. However, complainant through Ex.C5 protested about portability/migration of plan from 849UL to Safe 1099 and as such, it is obvious that virtually the complainant never opted for the change of plan. Bill Ex.C6 for period 16.1.2016 to 15.2.2016 also shows as if the complainant availed 849UL plan during this period. Ex.C8 shows the status of bill payments. SMS received by the complainant regarding change of plan to Safe 1099 dated 12.3.2016 is placed on record as Ex.C9. So, from the above produced documentary evidence, it is obvious that originally 849UL plan was availed by the complainant, but switching over to Safe 1099 plan was done by the Ops just by sending SMS. Ex.C5 and Ex.R4 are one and the same things, whereas, Ex.R5 and Ex.R6 shows that original plan 849UL was availed by the complainant even during period from 16.12.2015 to 15.2.2016. Ex.R7 is the same thing as is Ex.C3, whereas, Ex.R8 is the same thing as is Ex.C4. Even Ex.R9 shows that bill for period from 16.3.2016 to 15.4.2016 issued for charging monthly rent of Rs.849UL excluding taxes. Bill Ex.R10 shows the charging of Rs.849/- as monthly charges for the period 16.4.2016 to 15.5.2016 and as such, all this documentary evidence brought on record by both the parties establishes that only for three days, i.e. for the period from 12.3.2016 to 15.3.2016, activation of tariff plan Safe 1099 took place. As complainant did not accept the portability of that plan and that is why earlier 849UL plan again was restored.

9.                It is contended by counsel for OP1 and OP2 that only Rs.5/- charged in excess from the complainant for three days as rent owing to portability of the plan and as such, no unfair trade practice adopted by Ops, particularly when clause 8 of Ex.R3 provides for enhancement of the tariff without information. Enhancement of the taxes without information is different thing than that of portability of one plan to another without consent of the subscriber. No consent of the complainant in respect of the portability of the plan shown to be obtained by Ops and as such, action of activation of Safe 1099 plan was improper. After raising of protest by the complainant, the fault stood cured and as such, it can be said that the complainant not remained under much stress and strain or mental agony. Rather, complainant had to exert by writing letter and as such, meager mental harassment alone was suffered by the complainant.

10.              As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that Op1 and OP2 will refund the excess charged amount of Rs.5/- to the complainant and also pay compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant. No amount of litigation expenses allowed because complaint filed on 04.04.2016, but deactivation of plan namely Safe Rs.1099/- took place on 15.03.2016. Compliance of the above said order be made by OP1 and OP2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Complaint against OP3 is dismissed because OP3 is an agent only and responsibility remains of OP1 and OP2, being principal. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

          (Vinod Bala)        (Param Jit Singh Bewli)           (G.K. Dhir)

           Member                    Member                                President Announced in Open Forum

Dated:16.12.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.