DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 616/2015
D.No._______________________ Dated: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ms. PARUL SHARMA,
D/o LATE SH. RAJ KAMAL SHARMA,
R/o 372, SFS FLATS, PHASE IV,
ASHOK VIHAR, DELHI-110052.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
TATA INDICOM,
SHOP NO. 5 & 6, GROUND FLOOR,
DEEP MARKET, BLOCK-A, ASHOK VIHAR PHASE-I
DELHI-110052.
ALSO AT: JEEVAN BHARTI TOWER I,
10TH FLOOR, 124, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,
NEW DELHI-110001.
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 02.07.2015
Date of decision:17.06.2019
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that the complainant was using Tata Indicom no. 9212521999 from past 8 years and for the first time the complainant left for America for 3 months in May-2014 andprior to leaving, the complainant
CC No. 616/2015 Page 1 of 7
enquired with the customer care regarding safe custody option in which the complainant can pay an amount of Rs.50/- per month and the number will be put on safe custody and monthly rental will not apply. The complainant further alleged that the complainant was informed that the complainant to submit an application for putting the number on safe custody and a photocopy of ID proof for the same in customer service centre which the complainant did on 10.05.2014 at Tata Indicom Service Centre, Deep Cinema Complex and after all this the complainant was constantly for 3 consecutive days, visited the office of OP for pursuing the same, the complainant asked them to give a receiving but OP did not give any receipt instead will mail all the documents and other information and the complainant may satisfactory leave for the trip. Thereafter, the complainant came back on 03.08.2014 and checked the mail, the complainant was shocked to see that safe custody was not done and the complainant was receiving the monthly bills and non-payment intimations. On 04.08.2014, the complainant switched on mobile and started using it to see if it was working or not, then the complainant went to service centre of OP-1 to ask what was going on and what happened and went wrong about the account. OP informed that OP failed to provide the safe custody option from their end and the company’s end and said OP would try to get a maximum waiver of non-usage. Thereafter, several days of mental and physical stress and talking on the
CC No. 616/2015 Page 2 of 7
customer care OP gave a waiver of Rs.562/- only but the complainant had been illegally charged for an amount of approximately Rs.1,500/- also an amount of approx. Rs.357/- was submitted as an advance from the complainant side to clear the dues in May 2014 against a bill of Rs.643/- which the complainant submitted by paying Rs.1,000/- so that OP can deduct the amount of Rs.150 for safe custody, after 3 months of all this issue and talking to the customer care and mailing them no head has been paid from the team of OP to resolve the problem and instead the complaint has been closed without resolving it and the number was not working and barred from their side and OP still emphasize on payment of the bills and not resolving the problems. Thereafter, no solution was provided and the complainant to make full payment under protest after numerous complaints and a number of discussions on the phone with the customer care and other departments of OP and after few months OP again offered a lucrative offer of Internet pack for 1 GB data in Rs.94/- and the complainant started with this add on pack and OP induced to subscribe for the same, in the starting period, after using it for 3-4 months the complainant was surprised and shocked when without using the connection for calling after the delivery when the complainant was on a rest period the bill was showing such heavy illegal and exorbitant charges. The complainant further alleged that on talking with customer care of OP, the complainant got to know
CC No. 616/2015 Page 3 of 7
that the complainant being charged for the Internet usage despite of the add on pack for the upload and download charges, on asking the complainant was informed that if the complainant use anything else except for the what’s app the complainant being charged with the Internet charges, the complainant enquired from that for what purposes is this 1 GB data useful and why OP not informed about this at the time of activating the pack, OP had no answer. The complainant further alleged that the complainant had been given a life time of free Tata to Tata calling on the number 9212521999 which was given in writing in the compensation letter in 2009 but to the surprise OP has been charging for the same for the past one year on asking the reason for this, OP said that OP has failed to fulfil the promise and cannot help with this as well and when OP lured the customers for the schemes OP do not provide with any of this information on the telephone or Internet or hard copy and sometimes in coded language which a common man is not able to decipher as to what they are selling and OP has raised an illegal bill of approx. Rs.1,700/- which the complainant paid under protest because outgoing call has been barred illegally and the complainant accordingly alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OP to pay exemplary cost of Rs.5,00,000/- for
CC No. 616/2015 Page 4 of 7
deficiency in service as well as compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment and to direct OP to restore Tata to Tata free calling for life time on the complainant’s number as settled between the parties previously. The complainant has also sought of Rs.10,000/- towardslitigation expenses.
3. OP has been contesting the case and has filed written statement wherein OP submitted that the case is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the case is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action survives as OP as a good will gesture has already granted to the complainant the maximum possible waiver/adjustment from outstanding bills and the complainant upon receipt of such waiver willfully paid the outstanding amount an OP on receiving the outstanding amount re-activated the connection. OP further submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint in view of Sec. 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. OP further submitted that the “safe custody” of the said connection could not be activated by OP due to their un-anticipated system failure and OP duly communicated the same to the complainant and granted to the complainant the maximum possible waiver in the outstanding bills. OP further submitted that upon receipt of the mutually agreed amount, OP re-activated life time free ‘Tata to Tata calling feature’ and the same is still active and further submitted that “1 GB @ 94” plan was an add-on feature,
CC No. 616/2015 Page 5 of 7
wherein post consumption of 1 GB data, normal rental was to be charged and thus the allegations are false. OP further submitted that the complaint has been filed by the complainant with ulterior motive to damage the reputation of OP and to unjustly enrich herself and submitted that there is no deficiency in service.
4. The complainant filed rejoinderand denied the contentions of OP.
5. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of reply dated 18.05.2009 of OP to the Counsel for the complainant, copies of complaint/communication dated 19.10.2014, 01.12.2014 and 23.12.2014 sent by the complainant through e-mail to OP, copies of reply/communications dated 20.10.2014, 05.12.2014, 24.12.2014, 02.01.2015, 07.01.2015 and 26.05.2015 sent by OP to the complainant through e-mail, copies of bill dated 07.06.2014, 07.07.2014, 07.08.2014, 07.01.2015, 07.02.2015, 07.03.2015, 07.04.2015 & 07.05.2015.
6. On the other hand, Sh. Syed Mansoor Zainvi,Deputy Manager-Legal ofOP filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per line of defence taken by OP in tis written statement. OP has also filed written arguments.
7.This forum has considered the case of the parties in the lightof evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the parties. The complainant has failed to disclose/mention the dates
CC No. 616/2015 Page 6 of 7
specifically when the number of the complainant was not working and barred from the side of OP. On the other hand, it is proved by OP that prior to filing the complaint full rental of the period during which the complainant has paid for keeping the number in safe custody has been waived prior to filing of the complaint. So, we are of opinion that the complainant has failed to prove the case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. Thus, we find no merits in the complaint and the complaint is accordingly dismissed.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 17th day of June, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 616/2015 Page 7 of 7
UPLOADED BY :- SATYENDRA JEET
