COMPLAINT FILED: 28.07.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 04th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1653/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.H.P.Leeladhar,<br /> S/o Huradi Puttaiah,<br /> Aged about 50 years,<br /> R/at No.12, 2nd Cross,<br /> Hosahalli,<br /> Bangalore West Range,<br /> Bangalore – 560 040.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.Devaraj A.S<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY 1. The Manager,<br /> Registered office<br /> Tata Tele Services Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Jevan Bharath Tower,<br /> 10th Floor, No.124,<br /> Connought Circles,<br /> New Delhi – 1100001.<br /> <br /> 2. The Manager,<br /> Tata Tele Services Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> No.30/1, Hosur Main Road,<br /> Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore – 560095.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to withdraw the demand bill for Rs.4,468/- unconditionally and furnish the details of log and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed the Internet services of the OP under tariff plan V-Det MV JUMBO 650 for domestic purpose so as to facilitate his daughter who is studying in Engineering. Complainant is prompt in making the monthly payment without any default. With all that during the month of May 2008 OP customer care service intimated him that there is a due of Rs.4,000/- towards the hidden charges and demanded for the payment. Complainant was shocked to note it, that too when he has not kept any amount in due and regular in making payment of the demand bill, the question of complainant paying service charges on the amount in due rather does not arises. With all that OP sent the bill for Rs.4,346/- towards the usage and service of Internet for period of 08.05.2008 to 07.06.2008. When complainant challenged the highhandedness of the OP it disconnected the said Internet facility. Unilateral act of OP has caused lot of inconvenience to his daughter in her studies. His consumption never exceeded Rs.730/- per month but still OP raised a demand bill at their whim and fancy. Due to the sudden disconnection of the said Internet service in the middle of May 2008, he has suffered both monetary loss and mental agony. He felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. He issued the legal notice to OP to compensate him it went in vain. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he availed the Internet services of the OP under the tariff plan V-Det MV JUMBO 650 for domestic purpose so as to facilitate his daughter who is studying in Engineering. He is prompt in making payment of the monthly bills. He is not a defaulter at any point of time. With all that OP raised bill for Rs.4,000/- and odd in the month of May 2008 under the head of hidden and service charges. When complainant is not a defaulter, question of payment of service charges on the so called arrears does not arise. Hence he made correspondence with the OP to withdraw the said bill.<br /> <br /> 5. It is further contended that OP instead of heeding to his request sent the bill for Rs.4,346/- towards the usage of Internet for a period 08.05.2008 to 07.06.2008. Complainant used to get a monthly bill of hardly Rs.730/- but the demand bill of the OP is very high and exorbitant. Complainant felt OP raised the said bill according to their own whim and fancy, thus cheated him. Complainant did approach the OP to furnish him the details of the availment of Internet facility it was not responded. On his insistence OP instead of furnishing the detailed information unilaterally with malafide intention disconnected the Internet service in the middle of May 2008.<br /> <br /> 6. For no fault of his, he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss that too due to the hasty act of the OP which is unjust and improper. He caused the legal notice to OP to compensate him but it went in futile. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents produced appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity.<br /> <br /> 7. The non appearance of the OP even after due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, if the complainant is really in due of Rs.4,468/- there is course open to OP to recover the same under due process of law in accordance with the rules and regulations. But here in this case it appears OP has acted arbitrarily and disconnected the Internet connection though complainant daughter was in dire need of the same for the promoting her Engineer education. Here we find the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. Complainant has further contended that OP failed to furnish the details of the use of the Internet facility. It is not proved whether complainant is actually in due of the said amount of Rs.4,468/- pertaining to the period 08.06.2008 to 07.07.2008. Under such circumstances the claim of the OP appears to be rather unjust and improper. Such a claim must have made the complainant to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances complainant deserves certain relief as prayed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 04th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />