New Complaint No.216 of 2023.
Date of Institution:26.10.2023.
Old Complaint No:222 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 03.05.2018.
Date of order:12.01.2024.
Sham Lal aged about 65 years Son of Des Raj, near Vishkaram Mandir Dina Nagar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143531.
…......Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Ram Kumar Son of Kishan Chand, resident of Berian Mohalla Dina Nagar (Gali near Panj Peer Baba) Tehsil & District Gurdaspur. Authorized representative / area Incharge of Quadrant Televentures Limited. Pin Code – 143531.
2. Quadrant Televentures Limited (Formerly known as HFCL Infotel Ltd.), Corporate Office B-71, Phase VII Industrial Focal Point Mohali. Pin Code – 160055, through its Manager.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Smt.Sunita Kumari, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Sachin Mahajan, Advocate.
Opposite Party No.1 exparte.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Sham Lal, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Ram Kumar Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant got internet (Connect) connection from the opposite parties in January 2016 and paid security amount of Rs.1350/- for his Phone No. 01875-505304, A/c No. 2801135. The complainant paid all the bills of the above mentioned connection to the OP No.1 who used to collect the bills from the house of the complainant. It is pleaded that the complainant paid bill for the month of October 2016 of Rs.1030/- on 10.11.2016 and requested the OP No.1 for disconnection of his connection because he was going abroad i.e. Denmark on 20.10.2016. But the OP No.1 did not care for the same. He given this connection to someone else and got Rs.450/- from the complainant without issuing any receive and connection was restored in November 2016. Since the complainant was not satisfied with the services of the opposite parties, so he decided to get the connection disconnected permanently. It is further pleaded that the complainant requested the appellate authority of the complainant for disconnection on 29.01.2017 at 04:02 P.M. The appellate authority answered that connection is barred and asked him the deposit accessories. It is further pleaded that then the complainant handed over entire accessories to the OP No.1, which is evident from the final payment receipt dated 08.03.2017. It is further pleaded that through the complainant had made full and final payment and nothing was outstanding against him, but the OP’s company used to send messages and bills to the complainant. It is further pleaded that so again in the month of April 2017, the complainant requested the appellate authority who answered that "we would like to inform you that billing of your connection has been stopped temporarily w.e.f. 12.04.2017 through message. But the OP No.1 continued to send bills to the complainant with sole motive to harass him. It is further pleaded that the complainant after receiving each and every bill approached the OP No.1 and requested him to stop issuance of bills as he had paid each and every bill to him and obtained final payment bill/receipt, but the OP No.1 did not pay any heed, rather came to the house of the complainant on number of times and issued threats to drag him to Tees Hazari Court Delhi, in the presence of wife and daughter of the complainant. Not only this the complainant received threatening calls from Phone No. 98880-30202, 75289-12489, 87509-94929 that he will be dragged to Tees Hazari Court Delhi. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties did not end here, rather they got issued legal notice dated 18.11.2017 served to the complainant through their counsel Mr. Rahul Katoch, Advocate alleging that Rs.1830/- is outstanding against the complainant and called upon him to pay the above mentioned amount along with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of due till the realization within 15 days, failing suit will be initiated against the complainant, whereas nothing is outstanding against the complainant. It is further pleaded that though the complainant handed over accessory of the connection with the opposite parties in March 2017, but to the utter surprise of the complainant he has received bill dated 09.08.2017 for Rs.1259/- bill dated 11.12.2017 for Rs.1850/- and again received threatening message that if amount of Rs.5000/- is not paid, the complainant will be implicated in some false case, which is illegal act on the part of the opposite parties caused mental agony, torture, financial loss and harassment to the complainant for no fault on his part. The complainant is not liable to pay single penny to the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to withdraw their above mentioned bills and not to receive single penny from the complainant as he had already paid the entire outstanding amount. It is further prayed that compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant besides the amount in question on account mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/- may also be awarded in favour of the complainant after accepting this complaint, in the interest of justice.
3. Opposite party No.1 did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order date 27.06.2018.
4. Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the compliant is not maintainable in its present form and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint has been filed with a malafide intention to harass the opposite parties. It is pleaded that the complaint is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant against the replying opposite party to file the present complaint and hence the complaint under reply is an abuse of the process of law and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that present complaint has been filed by the complainant to get undue advantage from the replying opposite party. The replying opposite party submits that the complainant has created a false story in his complaint to mislead this Hon'ble Commission by concocting and distorting the facts and circumstances of the present case and to get undue benefit from the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties with malafide intention. It is further pleaded that no such malpractice has been adopted by the opposite parties as alleged in the present complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant himself has filed the present complaint by alleging false allegations and created a concocted story and concealing the material facts in the present complaint. It is further pleaded that replying opposite party being service provider has the good reputation and facilitates to its customers with better facilities and by filling of such false and frivolous complaint defame the reputation of the replying opposite party. It is further pleaded that complaint is false one requires dismissal with costs. There is no deficiency in service and mental harassment to the complainant by the answering opposite party. It is further pleaded that the present complaint is counter blast to the outstanding amount demanded by the replying opposite party from the complainant. Complainant is guilty for his own acts and conducts. In order to avoid payment of outstanding amount of Rs.1830/-, present complaint has been filed by the complainant by alleging false allegations. It is further pleaded that replying opposite party had been regularly sending bills to the complainant but inspite of that, he has not deposited the bill amount and ultimately, for the recovery of amount of Rs.1830/-, replying opposite party had adopted due legal procedure by sending legal notice of recovery through its counsel, but with malafide intention, present complaint has been filed by the complainant. It is further pleaded that as per record available with the replying opposite party, no request of disconnection of connection was ever received and no record of transfer of said connection in name of any other person is available with the replying opposite party, hence allegations are stoutly denied and the complainant be put strict proof of the same. It is further pleaded that after November, 2016, the complainant used the connection but he had not paid any amount to the replying opposite party. Thereafter, the replying opposite party issued bill for amount of Rs.1133/, Rs.1922/- and then adjustment/waiver was given for Rs.800/- to the complainant but again he did not make payment and then another adjustment/waiver for Rs.600/- was made and then amount of Rs.800/- was paid by the complainant on 08.03.2017 for which receipt was issued to the complainant after adjustment of the previous bill amount, but again this time, no request for disconnection was given by the complainant and he continued using the connection and then bill for Rs.404/- was raised by the replying opposite party for the month of March 2017 and the complainant paid amount of Rs.404/- and then again connection was continued and then bill amount for further months were issued to the complainant but he did not make payment and till date, there is outstanding amount of Rs.1830/- to be paid by the complainant to the replying opposite party. It is further pleaded that it is wrong that the complainant handed over accessories to the replying opposite party No.2 and there is no such record available with the replying opposite party.
On merits, the opposite party No.2 has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sham Lal, (Complainant) as Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-17.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Baljit Kumar, (Power of Attorney holder of Quadrant Televentures Ltd., Amritsar) as Ex.OP-2/1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/8 alongwith reply.
7. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant got internet connection from opposite parties in January, 2016 and paid security amount of Rs.1350/- and the complainant had paid all the bills. It is further argued that complainant paid bill for the month of October, 2016 Rs.1030/- on 10.11.2016 and had requested the opposite party No.1 for disconnecting his connection as the complainant was leaving abroad on 20.10.2016 but the opposite party No.1 did not disconnect the connection. It is further argued that opposite party No.1 had given this connection to some one else and got Rs.450/- from the complainant without issuing any receipt. The connection was restored in November, 2016 and again complainant requested the appellate authority for disconnection on 29.01.2017 but appellate authority asked the complainant to deposit accessories to opposite party No.1. It is evident from final payment receipt dated 08.03.2017 that all the assessaries were returned. It is further argued that inspite of above opposite parties issued bill of Rs.1830/- and directed the complainant to make the payment failing which threatened to action. The act of opposite parties for having refused to withdraw the bill amounts to deficiency in service.
9. Opposite party No.1 remained exparte.
10. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that complainant has failed to deposit the amount of Rs.1830/- and has further failed to deposit accessories as such connection of the complainant could not be disconnected and the amount of Rs.1830/- is still outstanding against the complainant and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant to conceal his own misdeed and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.
11. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.2 and gone through the record.
12. To prove his case complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1, copy of receipt Ex.C2, copies of E-mails Ex.C3 to Ex.C6, copy of receipt Ex.C7, copy of E-mail Ex.C8, copy of legal notice Ex.C9, copies of messages Ex.C10 to Ex.C17 whereas opposite party No.2 has placed on record affidavit of Baljit Kumar Ex.OP-2/1, copy of statement of record Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/7 and copy of special power of attorney Ex.OP-2/8.
13. It is admitted fact that complainant had got installed internet connection from the opposite parties in January, 2016 and had made request for disconnection which was not accepted by the opposite parties. It is further admitted fact that opposite parties have issued bill of Rs.1830/- to the complainant. The only issue for adjudication before this Commission is whether refusal to disconnect the connection and the demand of Rs.1830/- amounts to deficiency in service.
14. Perusal of E-mails Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 shows that the correspondence which has taken place between the complainant and opposite party No.2 is regarding non deposit of accessories by the complainant but in the month of October complainant has again asserted to have deposit the accessories with the opposite party No.1 but complainant has not placed on record any receipt signed by the opposite parties regarding deposit of accessories. Accordingly, we are of the view that since the complainant has failed to deposit accessories with the opposite parties and opposite parties were unable to disconnect the connection of the complainant which is result in issuance of bill of Rs.1830/- which shows that complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
15. Accordingly, present complaint being without merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
16. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
17. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Jan. 12, 2024 Member
*YP*
