Haryana

Panchkula

CC/169/2015

DHARAM PAL SINGHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE COMMUNICATION. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

01 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                               

Consumer Complaint No	:	169 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	27.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	01.03.2016

Mr.Dharam Singhal s/o Late Sh.Diwan Chand Singhal, R/o H.No.399, Sector 12-A, District Panchkula, Haryana.    

                                                                                                                                                                                                          ….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 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, District-Panchkula, Haryana through its Manager.

 

                                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Amit Gupta, Adv., for the complainant. 

Mr.Amit Singla, Adv., for the Ops.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that he availed the post paid mobile connection bearing No.78141-09900 from the Ops on 21.03.2013. The complainant was regularly using the mobile services of Ops and was making the payment against the bills/invoice regularly. On 24.03.2015, the complainant had given the request to the Ops to disconnect the mobile connection and the same was suspended from the system of the Ops vide ID case No.231468847. But after disconnecting the mobile connection, the Ops kept on sending the bills without any reason for which the complainant had raised the issue with the Ops. The complainant requested the Ops to stop sending the bills after the disconnection of the mobile connection and after great persuasion, the Ops had admitted their mistake and mentioned in the bill dated 07.06.2015 amounting to Rs.477/- that the connection had already got suspended and therefore, there was no need to pay any amount and assured that no future bill would be issued to the complainant regarding the mobile connection. But thereafter, the complainant again received the bill dated 07.07.2015 amounting to Rs.975/- to which the complainant visited the office of Ops and informed them about their assurance that no future faulty bills would be issued to the complainant. The Ops admitted their mistake and mentioned on the bill that the connection had already been suspended and there was no need to pay. The complainant has also sent a mail dated 27.07.2015 to the Ops that no faulty bill be sent to the complainant. Thereafter, the Ops again raised an invoice dated 07.08.2015 amounting to Rs.1229/- as outstanding dues to be cleared by 25.08.2015 and also mentioned in the bill that in case, he failed to make the payment before due date then he had to pay a sum of Rs.1329/- to the account of the Ops. The complainant went to the office of Ops and told them about their faulty billing system but inspite of rectifying the defect in the system, the Ops misbehaved with the complainant. The Ops had not only refused to again look into the genuine and legitimate demands of the complainant but had rather threatened the complainant to pay the outstanding dues otherwise they would file false complaints against him. The complainant again sent an email dated 12.08.2015 to the Ops that the mobile connection had already been disconnected in the month of March, 2015 but for no reasons, the Ops were raising illegal bills. This act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant had opted for the suspension of the services and the same were suspended. It is submitted that during the suspension, the bills generated were with regard to the rentals only and late payment charges due to the non-payment on the part of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant was trying to confuse between the disconnection and suspension. It is submitted that at no point of time, the complainant had reverted to get the same disconnected even after it was communicated to him that his connection has been suspended. It is submitted that no undue pressure has been exerted on the complainant for the payment of the bills/outstanding. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Ops has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record and have also considered the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the complainant.
5. The fact regarding using of mobile connection released by the Ops to the complainant is not disputed. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops kept on sending the bills qua the said mobile connection despite its disconnection and the Ops did not look into his genuine and legitimate demands, therefore, he had left with no other option but to file the present complaint. On the other hand the Ops have come with the plea that during the suspension the bills generated were with regard to the rentals only and late payment charges due to non-payment on the part of the complainant, therefore, the Ops cannot be held deficient in providing service. Moreover, no undue pressure was exerted on the complainant for the payment of the bills/outstanding. The connection of the complainant was suspended and not disconnected but he is trying to create confusion between the same.
6. From perusal of the complaint, reply, affidavits and other material placed on file by both the parties, it is suffice that the connection of the complainant was suspended by the Ops vide ID case No.231468847, meaning thereby that the complainant was not using the mobile connection from 24.03.2015 and he was no more consumer by the Ops. It is also established on the case file that after suspension of the connection the Ops kept on sending the bills to the complainant but the complainant has failed to prove on the case that he had ever paid the bill or made any payment to the Ops after suspension of the account. It is worthwhile to mention here that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are compensatory in nature but in the present case the complainant has also failed to prove on the case file that what type of malpractice and deficient services has been adopted by the Ops. The complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, the present complaint deserves dismissal. It is ordered accordingly. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint. File be consigned to records after due compliance.

 

Announced

01.03.2016        S.P.ATTRI        ANITA KAPOOR         DHARAM PAL

                          MEMBER         MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT