Date of Filing: 12/02/2015

   Date of Order:14/11/2017

ORDER

BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT

1.     This is the complaint filed in person under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and prays for orders to direct the O.P to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment, humiliation, mental agony and cost incurred due to loss of service and time and to issue no due certificate and for other relief as sought in the complaint.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant took reliance net connection in January 2014 with the service plan of unlimited 3GB for Rs. 444/-  but when the connection was activated it was tagged to an incorrect plan as against what the complainant had requested for with a much higher rental.  But however, it was resolved by the O.P from higher rental to actual rental.  But not before having numerous request escalations mental agony, humiliation and harassment of the complainant.  It is stated that, as the complainant was put on the non-tariff during activation by Reliance Communications though later it was rectified after multiple follow-ups the first bill which was issued by the O.P was incorrect as it was assigned to the wrong tariff plan and thus O.P took more than two days to rectify and thus the complainant underwent painful experience. Further states that,  the complainant though it was incorrect bill paid the first bill though it was incorrect and in good faith paid the bill assuming that it could be rectified  by next bill , but which did not happen  on several multiple follow-ups to the Reliance Communication Customer care and complainant stopped payment and stated that he would make further payment only if he receives the correct bill plan and the service provider took two months to correct the billing error  during the said period the O.P barred the service for of the complainant for non-payment from 26^th April till 8^th May 2014. Being frustrated with the quality of service and finally complainant decided to cancel the connection as the service provider was not able to provide a single correct bill since the complainant took the connection in Jan-2014. As the complainant underwent financial loss so he discarded the O.P service and used USB dongle purchased from the O.P’s agent and hence the complainant found a billing unethical issues and underwent economic loss and harassment by the O.P and O.P took two months to rectify the defects. Though O.Ps rectified the defects the complainant underwent financial loss mental agony harassment. Hence this complaint.

3.     Upon issuance of notice O.P entered appearance through its advocate and filed its version. In the version it is contended that, complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed.  Further O.P contended that in lieu of Hon’ble supreme Court decision in General Manager and M.K. Krishnan and another (2009) 8 SCC 481 which has held that Consumer Forum and Commission do not have jurisdiction to undertake the complaint of a subscriber against the mobile phone operators.  Further it is held that the Telegraph Act is a special Act hence provision under Section 7B the Telegraph Act regarding dispute would over right the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act and thus this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon  alleged dispute between the complainant and the O.P and the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reason that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the C.P. Act 1986. It is also contended that the complainant had taken the internet connection was not for personal use and hence is not a consumer. Further the complainant himself has stated that was using the internet for his office use which is not for his personal usage and hence it is contended that the connection was taken for commercial purpose and therefore, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Further O.P contended that, email dated 24.5.2014 sent by the O.P to the complainant clearly states that the request for termination was registered on 10.5.2014 since termination is a standard process of 15 days as per the process monthly rental charges are applicable for the first 7 days from the date of request and after the 7 day number get suspended to stop the further billing. The bill dated 20.5.2014 the complainant  has been charged on pro-rata basis on 20.4.2014 to 5.5.2014 and 7.5.2014 to 16.5.2014  and therefore the complainant has been charged correctly and hence the allegations made by the complainant is false and baseless  and further by denying all other allegations made in the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5.     In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and also heard the arguments.

6.   On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration is:-

(A)   Whether the complainant is a consumer and the

       complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

(B)  Whether the complainant has proved

                         deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?

(C)   Whether the complainant is entitled to

       the relief prayed for in the complaint?

(D)   What order?

7.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT (A) :    In the Affirmative.

POINT  (B):    In the Affirmative.

POINT (C):     In the Partly Affirmative.

POINT (D):       As per the final order

for the following:

REASONS

POINT No.(A):-

8.     On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is not in dispute that, the complainant had taken the service of the O.P for internet connection in Jan-2014.  It is worth to mention that O.P never denied that complainant is not their customer. Further the complainant availed the service for his use may be his office, but availing the said service is not for resale and hence their exists a privity of contract between the parties and is a customer and the service provider. As per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act  it is an additional remedy and it is not derogatory to  any other law  time being in force. It is pertinent to note that the Ministry of Telecommunication Department also issued the Circular:-

“No.2017/2013-Policy-I Government of India Ministry of Communications & IT Department of Telecommunications dated 24.01.2014 also File No.J-24/11/2014-CPU, Government of India Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution Department of Consumer Affairs ( Consumer Protection Unit)  dated 7.3.2014”

 9.    In view of the above circular to the effect that the Consumer Complaints can entertain by this Forum.  Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable before this Forum. According we answered the Point No.(A) in the Affirmative.

Point No.(B):

10.   On perusal of the pleadings it is not in dispute that the complainant by available the service of the O.P has taken the internet connection for a service plan unlimited 3GB of Rs.444/- and later the said connection was activated but later it was tagged to a incorrect plan as against for which the complainant had requested for  and as such there was much higher bill was raised.  But however later the said bill plan was resolved by the O.P  after several multiple follow-ups by the complainant. However now the crux of the matter is to consider whether the complainant was under mental agony suffering during the period of resolving the billing plan?

11.   Per-contra O.P in his entire version the only attack is that the complainant is not a consumer and the same is answered in favour of the complainant.  Further contended that the request of complainant for termination was registered on 10.5.2014, service termination is standard process of 15 days.  As per the process monthly rental charges applicable for first seven days from the date of request and after the seventh day number get suspended to stop further delay. The bill dated 20.5.2014 the complainant has been charged on pro-rata basis from 20.4.2014 to 5.5.2014 and 7.5.2014 to 16.5.2014. Hence contended that they charged correctly. It is pertinent to note that, the allegation of the complainant is the O.P tagged to the wrong plan but not provided the plan tariff which was required by the complainant and the same is not denied in their version. Therefore it is established that O.P when the connection was activated it was tagged to an incorrect plan and it leads to dispute between the parties. Further it is note worthy to mention that for the wrong act of the O.P, why should be the complainant suffered and the act of O.P seems to be unethical and they are attempting to justify their act inspite of their deficient service. On perusal of the documents the complainant also escalated  issue to the authorities regarding the  raising of tariff bill to an extent of Rs.950/-  instead of Rs.444/- and the authorities overlooked the fact and justify the act it amounts to unfair trade practice.  In the light of above discussion, we reached to conclusion that the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Accordingly we answered Point No.(B) in the Affirmative.

Point No.(C)

12.   It is worth to note that, when the complainant took internet connection in the month of Jan-2014 from the O.P and it was tagged to an incorrect plan and the same was not denied by the O.P. Further due to incorrect plan the complainant suffered higher tariff.  On perusal of many exchange email communications it reveals that the complainant due to incorrect plan suffered and his time was obviously consumed.  However the complainant did not place any cogent evidence in order to assess the damages as compensation what he claims. In the attendance circumstances of the case we deem it just and proper to direct the O.P to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for fault made by the O.P in providing service to the complainant/consumer along with Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the proceeding and it will meets the ends of justice. Accordingly we answered POINT No.(C) in the Partly Affirmative.

POINT (C):

13.   On the basis of answering the Points (A) to (C) in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed in part with cost.

2. O.P. i.e. Reliance Communications Ltd., Represented by its Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which O.P. directed to pay interest on the above said amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

3. Further O.P is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

4. The O.P is hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 14^th  Day of November 2017)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

*RAK