Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Gurcharan Dass against opposite parties i.e. M/s Tata Indicom through its Manager, Tata Tele Services Ltd. Mohali and also through its dealer, Tata Indicom, Satnarain Bazar Chowk, Jatpura Road, Kapurthala seeking direction against them to provide itemized bill and also for monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service for mental agony and physical hrassment. <br /> 2. Brief facts in the complaint are that complainant is abonefide consumer of M/s Tata Tele Services Ltd. C-125, Phase-VIII, Industrial area, Mohali. Opposite party No.2 installed a walky telephone connection No. 9257258821 at his residence on 7/4/2007. He deposited Rs.500/- towards Walky hand set and installation charges of Rs.650/- and cost of Data cable amounting to Rs.250/- was paid by the complainant with opposite party No.2 for which no receipt was issued by opposite party No.2. He was told by the opposite party that monthly rent of Rs.350/- will be charged from him and free usage of calls/Internet use to the tune of Rs. 200/- per month shall be given by opposite party to him besides free Internet usage of 2000 minutes per month (from 10 PM to 5 AM daily ) and call rate within Punjab Circle was was told as 75 Paise per minute on any network and call rate outside Punjab but within India was told as Rs.1/- per minute on any network and its itemized bil was to be provided by the opposite party. It is further averred that on the next day of installation of the Walky No. 9257259921, he found that telephone was not working properly but was hanging. On his complaint to the opposite party, the said Walky hand set was replaced within five/six days. He however noticed from the computer that an amount of Rs.461/- was outstanding as on 9/4/2007 against him as its usage and rental for two days only whereas he had made hardly two calls upto 9/4/2007 from the Tata Indicom connection. He worked on Internet for 7-8 hours during this period and thereafter was deprived off the use of Internet for which that particular connection had been taken. The outgoing calls were barred by opposite party NO.1 from noon on 24/4/2007 i.e. on 18th day of installation and surprisingly an amount of Rs.1640/- was told to be outstanding against the complainant for payment. He immediately approached Customer Care Executive of opposite party No.1 and lodged complaint on 24/4/2007 vide No. 59024507 and he was told that usage had crossed the credit limit of Rs.1000/-. The condition of credit limit was never told by the opposite party before installation of the connection. However, he requested opposite party NO.1 to supply the itemized bill and opposite party NO.1 assured him that hand copy of the itemized bill i.e. print out of statement shall be supplied to him within four days for Rs.461/- only and the details shall also be made available to him through E-mail. Surprisingly no itemized bill was provided to him despite repeated requests. Finding no satisfactory reply, opposite party No.1 was requested to disconnect the connection in question but the same was not disconnected immediately. His outgoing calls had been barred from 24/4/2007 but he was being communicated the outstanding amount of Rs.461/- vide SMS on 30/4/2007 as referred to in para-5 of the complaint and no itemized bills were supplied to him for clearance of outstanding amounts despite repeated requests to the opposite parties till date Walky hand set provided by the opposite party is till lying with him. . Even if there is credit limit of Rs.1000/-, the outstanding amount had never reached that limit and the opposite party has harrassed him by barring the outgoing calls and by repeatedly pressurizing him for payment of outstanding bills without providing any detailed bill . However, he had made only 3/4 local calls of total duration of 6-7 minutes from the Walky telephone connection and had used Intenet during the time when it was free i.e. from 10 PM to 6 AM and its charges can never be Rs. 790/-. Therefore, complainant did not return Walky hand set to opposite party No.2. Opposite parties are therefore, guilty of deficiency in service on their part for which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared, controverted allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. Preliminary objections have been raised that complainant has claimed highly exaggerated amount on account of compensation of the financial loss without giving any incident of any loss suffered by him. On merits it is admitted that complainant is a customer of opposite party having been allotted Walky Telephone connection No. 92572-58821 on 7/4/2007. The tariff plan subscribed by the complainant carried a monthly rent of Rs. 350/- first 2000 minutes/260 MB Internet usage free ( from 10 PM to 6 AM ) and rupee value discount for Rs. 200/- per month . It is denied that itemized bill was to be provided by the opposite party.. The itemized bills are provided to the subscriber only on request and not free of cost. . This fact is admitted that in the bill for the period 9/4/2007 to 8/5/2007, total amount was shown as Rs.2184/- out of which complainant was given a waiver of Rs.1992/- on account of the fact that because of computer error 2000 minutes free Internet usage component was not activated and still complainant did not pay the remaining amount of the bill . It is denied that complainant ever applied for itemized bill as stated. The itemized bill is provided by the opposite party on the request of the subscriber and on payment of Rs.25/- as charges of the same. . The complainant made request for duplicated bill which was promptly attended to and was supplied. Apropos the return of Walky hand set, it is pleaded that complainant is duty bound to return the Walky hand set which costs Rs.5000/- to the Company and is purely provided on right to use basis. . He never deposited any amount of bill raised upon him. As on date Rs.790/- is still outstanding from him after adjustment of security deposit of Rs.500/-. He is also required to return the Walky hand set to the opposite party Co. Therefore, there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties by not supplying itemized bill .<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant Gurcharan Dass produced in evidence his complaint Ex.C1 and plan brochure Ex.C2.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties producedin evidence one affidavit of Manager (Legal) namely Amit Gupta Ex.R1.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged before us that opposite party Company is guilty of deficiency in service as it failed to supply the itemized bill for user of Walky telephone connection No. 9257258821 despite his repeated requests and demand of opposite party for recovery of alleged outstanding amount of Rs.790/- is absolutely unjustified,. On the other hand it has been counter-argued by learned counsel for the opposite parties that complainant failed to deposit outstanding amount of Rs.790/- for user of telephone services and Internet services nor even returned Walky hand set despite alleged disconnection nor made any payment for itemized bill. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. Admittedly there is unequal fight between hapless consumer and mighty Tata Indicom Company service provider. Undisputed facts are that complainant deposited requisite amount for purpose of installation of Walky telephone connection No. 92572-58821 at his residence on 7/4/2007 alongwith facilities of free usage of calls and usage of Internet Rs.200/- per month besides free Internet usage of 2000 minutes per month (from 10 PM to 5 AM daily). Complainant alleged that he noticed from the computer of opposite party that amount of Rs.461/- was outstanding as on 9/4/2007 against him as its usage and rental for two days only whereas he made hardly two calls upto 9/4/2007. On the other hand opposite party Company issued bill for the period 9/4/2007 to 8/5/2007 shown as Rs.2184/- and admittedly he was given waiver of Rs. 1992/- because of computer error 2000 minutes free Internet usage component was not activated . Much has been agitated by the opposite party Company that itemized bill was not requested for nor payment of Rs.25/- as its charges was made. So there was no question of issuing itemized bill.. Firstly opposite party Company has not produced terms and conditions governing issuance of Walky telephone connection or any liability of payment of charges for supply of itemized bill. Therefore, opposite party cannot be expected to withheld the material document within its possession. not to keep its customer in darkness. We find from the SMS record Ex.C2 of the complainant that bill for the month of May 2007 was escalated from Rs.461/- to Rs.2702/- which complainant has alleged that his outgoing calls of this number were barred from 24/4/2007. He has also intimated vide his notice dated 19/6/2007 Ex.C1 for disconnection of his telephone though opposite party denied any such request for disconnection. Therefore, heavy onus lies upon opposite party i.e. Tata Indicom to produce the record for user of telephone or Internet services from April, 2007 to June, 2007. There is only one affidavit of Amit Gupta, Manager (Legal) Tata Indicom Services Ex.R1 that amount of Rs.790/- is still outstanding from the complainant after adjusting of security deposit of Rs.500/- and he is required to return the Walky hand set. Opposite party Company has, however, failed to produce material record justifying imposition of amount of Rs.790/- and also for not supplying the imtemized bill.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint and issue direction to the opposite parties to issue itemized bill with further direction to pay monetary compensation of Rs.3000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service and also cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/- within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 24.7.2008 Member President.