Haryana

StateCommission

A/251/2016

DHARAM SINGHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT GUPTA

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    251 of 2016

Date of Institution:    22.03.2016

Date of Decision :    01.08.2016

 

Dharam Singhal son of late Shri Diwan Chand Singhal, Resident of House No.399, Sector 12-A, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                      Appellant/complainant

Versus

1.      Reliance Communication Limited having its registered office at “H” Block, 1^st Floor, DAKC, Navi Mumbai-400709, India through its Managing Director.

2.      Reliance Communication Limited having its registered office at “H” Block, 1^st Floor, DAKC, Navi Mumbai-400709, India through its Customer Care Head.

3.      Reliance Communication Limited having its registered office at Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, DLF Building, Tower-F, near Kishangarh, Chandigarh-160101 through its Manager.

4.      Reliance Communication Limited having its Office at SCO No.37, Sector-11, Panchkula, Haryana through its Manager.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Argued by:                    Shri Amit Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri D.K. Singal, Advocate for respondents.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of unsuccessful complainant is directed against the order dated March 1^st, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by him was dismissed.

2.      Dharam Singhal-complainant/appellant, took postpaid mobile connection No.78141-09900 from Reliance Communication Limited-Opposite Parties/respondents, on March 21^st, 2013. He had been paying the bills regularly. On March 24^th, 2015 the complainant approached the opposite parties to suspend the above said connection and the opposite parties suspended it vide ID No.231468847. The rental bill was being issued to the complainant.

3.      The grievance of the complainant is that since he had got disconnected the mobile connection, the bills were wrongly sent to him. On the other hand, the opposite parties took the plea that the telephone connection was not disconnected and it was only got suspended and therefore rental bill was sent to the complainant.

4.      Indisputably, the mobile telephone connection was got suspended and not disconnected. A perusal of the Bills (Annexure C-1 to C-3) shows that these were sent for Monthly Rental charges.  There is nothing on the record to show that after suspension of his mobile telephone connection, the opposite parties ever raised the bills from the complainant for usage, rather the bills were sent for Monthly Rental charges. The complainant has not led any evidence to prove that after suspension of his connection, he ever paid the bills. Since the telephone was only got suspended, therefore, the complainant was liable to pay the rental bills. Moreover, it may be relevant to mention here that the opposite parties have waived of the Rental Bills also.

5.      In view of the above, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. Thus, the order under challenge does not require any interference.

6.      Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

	Announced: 01.08.2016			(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member			(Nawab Singh) President

CL