CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.63/2007
Adv. P.A.S Rao.,
12D,DDA MIG Flats,
Sarai Jullena,
New Delhi-110025. ………. Complainant
Vs.
- M/s Reliance Infocomm Services
A-231,Okhla Phase-1
New Delhi-110020
- M/s Reliance Communications
Infrastructure Ltd.
Reliance House,
Near Mardia Plaza
Off.C.G Road
Ahmedabad-380006
Gujrat
- M/S Reliance Infocomm Ltd.
A-231,Okhla Phase-1
New Delhi-110020
- Properietor
M/S Cell Corner
16A,Sant Nagar
East of Kailash
New Delhi-110065 …………..Respondents
Date of Order: 26.08.2016
O R D E R
Ritu Garodia- Member
The complaint pertains to deficiency in internet services provided by OP1 to OP4.
The complainant allured by the advertisement of OP1-OP3 purchased Hi-Speed internet connection through OP4, Reliance India Mobile HELLO. The complainant paid Rs.800/- for internet connection while opting for “swift 40 plan”. The receipt is enclosed with the complaint. OP4 installed a phone without data cable on 17.4.2006. The data cable was installed on 22.4.2006 and complainant paid Rs.550/- towards installation. Receipt annexed. Still, the complainant was unable to access the internet. The Complainant made several complaints to OP4 but it was of no use. The complainant received a bill dated 25.04.2006 for the period 17.04.2006 to 24.4.2006 for Rs.229/-. The detailed bill is also enclosed.
The complainant being completely dissatisfied by service provided by OPs sent a compliant dated 5.5.2006 asking for refund and surrender of the phone to the OPs. The phone was surrendered on 8.05.2006. Acknowledgement receipt by OP is annexed. Thereafter the complainant received another bill dated 25.05.2006 for a period from 25.04.2006 to 24.05.2006 for Rs.397.18/- Copy enclosed. The complainant objected to this bill and sent a letter dated 03.06.2006 to OP concerning the aforementioned bill. The complainant again sent a letter dated 22.07.06 objecting to same but no reply was received. However, the complainant received a refund letter dated 27.08.2006, wherein a cheque of Rs.374.40/- was sent as a refund against a amount of Rs.1800/-. Letter is enclosed. The complainant once again vide letter dated 9.9.2006 objected to the conduct of OPs. No reply was received. Thereafter, complaint was filed.
OPs in their reply have stated that complainant had been irregular in paying the bills. OPs also relied on Customer Application Form (CAF), which limited their liability to refund the amount of security deposit after adjusting the charge though no CAF form has been enclosed with the pleadings. It is alleged that the complainant never complaint about non-activation of internet services. OP admits the bill enclosed with the complaint. It was further imputed that the voice uses services had been used by the complainant. OP admits that it received Rs.1800 out of which. Rs.800/- was used for installation purpose and Rs.626/- towards payment of pending bills that was adjusted from the security deposit of Rs.1000/- and the remaining has been returned OP has also referred to clause 9 of CAF. OP also admits that prompt services were provided after every complaint/correspondence received by the complainant. It was further stated that the date 05.12.2006 as been wrongly mentioned in the refund letter due to typographical error.
We have perused the pleading and correspondence filed by both the parties. The purchase of swift 20 internet plan by the complainant for Rs.1800 is admitted by both parties and the bills are annexed. The detailed examination of bill dated 25.04.2006 reveals bills for a period of 17.04.2006 to 24.04.2006. The charges are as follows
Summary of Current Charges Amount (Rs.)
One Time Charges 800.00
Monthly Charges 106.67
Voice Usage Charges 9.60
Sub Total 916.27
Taxes 112.15
Sub Total 1,028.42
Deposits and Refunds 1,000.00
Total Current Charges 2,028.42
Thereafter, the bill further reveals that the current charges being Rs.2028.42/- and payment being Rs.1800/- the total amount due is for Rs.254/-. OP has no where explained how deposits and refunds could be charged at Rs.1000/- and how monthly charges could be imposed on a bill period of one week.
Perusal of the second bill dated 25.05.2006 for a period 25.04.2006 to 25.05.2006 reveals the total charges of Rs.397.18/-. The details are as under
Summary of Current Charges Amount (Rs.)
Monthly Charges 280.00
Voice Usage Charges 51.60
Sub Total 331.60
Taxes 40.58
Sub Total 372.18
Other Discounts and Charges 25.00
Total Current Charges 397.18
OP has failed to explain the monthly charges of Rs.285/-, when the handset itself has been surrendered by the consumer on 08.05.2006 as per the acknowledgment receipt issued by OP.
OPs in continuation of the arbitrary and whimsical conduct sent a refund letter dated 27.08.2006. In this letter it is stated that the subscription was cancelled on 05.12.2006 and a refund cheque of Rs.374/- is enclosed. The refund breakup is as follows:
Deductions |
Usage: | 626 |
Activation Charges | 800 |
Exit Charges | 0 |
Handset Charges (if not returned) | 0 |
OPs have denied all the complainant letters sent by the complainant through proof of delivery for all correspondence has been annexed.
To encapsulate, the bills raised by OP appears to the capricious in nature without any explanation as for the charges imposed. The OPs even after the surrender of the instrument on 08.05.2006 through which the internet connection was provided, continued to send bills post that period. Even assuming that state 05.12.2006 has been wrongly mentioned in refund bill, the usage cannot be explained as earlier bills have arbitrarily imposed monthly charges and not explained charges of deposit and refund. The complainant cannot be expected to make payment for arbitrary and in consistent billing.
None of the bills shows any internet usage charges proving that no-internet services had been provided to the consumer. This leads us to the fraudulent practises prevalent in big companies where small consumers are being taken for a ride and not being provided with the services for which the payment is being made. OPs have relied time and again on an imaginary Customer Application Form. Which is nowhere annexed with the pleadings. OP has also failed to file any correspondence/letter in reply to various letters/complaints made by complainant from time to time.
We therefore found OP1-3 guilty of deficiency in providing internet services and direct it to refund Rs.1800/- with 9% interest from date of deposit till payment. We also award Rs.20,000/- as compensation for severe harassment cause to a commoner by a big multinational company and Rs.2000/- towards litigation expense.
Order to be complied within one month. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
(D.R TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
