This C.C. came before us for final hearing, the complainant appeared in person; in the presence of Sri.A.Ravindra, Advocate for opposite party No.2; notice of opposite party Nos.1 and 3 served and called absent; upon hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following order:
O R D E R
(per Sri. Vijay Kumar, President)
1. This complaint is filed u/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is a senior Advocate practicing at Khammam. The complainant has got two sons, who are working as software engineers, one at Beljium and another son at T.C.S. company at Chennai. His both sons having weekly offs on every Saturday and Sunday only. So as to chit chat with his sons through internet, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and obtained internet connection and completed all the formalities on 17-3-2007 and paid an amount of Rs.500/- towards deposit and Rs.561/- + 250/- towards activation fees vide receipt No.2616, vide CAF No.AP00015547. In turn the opposite party No.1 allotted a telephone bearing No.645408 and activated the internet connection to the complainant on the same day by opening an A/c.No.207509182 under tariff plan ME Lite 350 plan with effect from 17-3-2007.
After having taken internet connection, the complainant was busy in his profession and therefore, he could not avail the internet service for three weeks i.e. from 24-03/31-03 and on 7-4-2007. The complainant wanted to have chit chat with his sons, but to his surprise on 14-4-2007 without any intimation the opposite parties scrambled the telephone service, due to which the complainant lost the opportunity of chitchatting with his sons. On 14-4-2007 and 15-4-2007 the opposite parties have failed to provide the internet connection and they disconnected the said connection. This act on the part of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and it is a negligent act on the part of opposite parties in not providing service properly to the complainant, due to which the complainant undergone untold mental harassment, pain and suffering and inconvenience. On these two days, the complainant made several complaint but they went in vain.
While the matter was stood thus, to the surprise of the complainant, he received a bill, dated 18-4-2007 vide bill No.354062787 for an amount of Rs.899.15Ps. demanding him to pay the same for the month of April, 2007. Aggrieved by the said demand, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 on 23-4-2007 and questioned about their illegal disconnection, but the opposite parties irresponsibly behaved with complainant and got him insulted. Immediately, the complainant surrendered the said telephone connection to the opposite party No1 and settled account as demanded by opposite party No.1 paid balance of Rs.560/- up to the date i.e. up to 23-4-2007. The complainant also surrendered the instrument, for which the opposite party No.1 issued a receipt as “No damage” on the same day and the complainant paid the demanded amount of Rs.560/- to the opposite party No.1, for which another receipt was issued to him vide receipt bearing No.650870, dated 23-4-2007.
While the matter stood thus, to the surprise of the complainant he received a demand bill for the month of May, 2007 for an amount of the bill period is Rs.688/- and demanded him to pay the said amount. After receiving the bill, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and questioned the illegal demand, but opposite party No.1 gave vague answer. Subsequently, few days later, the opposite parties messenger came to the complainant and harassed him to pay bill amount by loudly speaking in front of house of the complainant by using platform language i.e. PHONE VAADUKOVADAM TELUSUGANI DABBULU KATTADAM TELIYADU” and insulted him unnecessarily. The complainant being a senior advocate got insulted by opposite party No.1 men, due to which he undergone mental agony and pain. This act on the part of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint.
Apart from the complaint, the complainant also filed his affidavit, reiterating the contents of the complaint. Having received the notice, the opposite party the opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 filed the counter and on behalf of opposite party No.3 though the vakalath is offered by Sri.A.Ravindra, Advocate yet vakalath is not filed. Therefore, the opposite party No.3 is called absent.
In the counter, opposite party No.2 contended that bill for the month of April, 2007 for a sum of Rs.899/- was issued to the complainant to make the payment on or before 5-5-2007. Since the customer is in the bill cycle of 18th day of another bill for the month of May, 2007. The previous outstanding for a sum of Rs.688/- for which the complainant is liable to pay. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
On behalf of the complainant, the following documents have been filed and marked.
Ex.A.1 - Tata Tele services bill receipt dt.17-3-2007
Ex.A.2 - Tata indicom bill dt.18-4-2007 for Rs.899/-
Ex.A.3 - Tata indicom receipt dt.23-4-2007 for Rs.560/-
Ex.A.4 - Tata Indicom Receipt of receiving phone by the opposite parties dt.23-4-2007
Ex.A.5 - Tata indicom bill dt.18-5-2007 for Rs.688/-.
On behalf of the complainant, written arguments filed. On behalf of the opposite party No.2, a memo is filed to treat the contents of counter as written arguments.
Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence. Upon which the points that arose for consideration are,
1. | Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in disconnecting the internet connection without intimating to the complainant? |
| |
2. | Whether the complainant is entitled to ask for the damages? |
| |
3. | To what relief? |
Points No.1 and 2:
It is not in dispute that the complainant has obtained internet connection from opposite party No.1 on 17-3-2007 by paying Rs.1,311/-. On this aspect of the case, the complainant refers to Ex.A.1, the receipt issued by opposite party No.1 for installing Internet connection. The complainant wanted to chit chat with his sons, who are working as software engineers one at Beljium and another at Chennai. With the said intention he tried to talk with his sons on 14-4-2007 and again on 15-4-2007, to his surprise the said Internet connection was disconnected. Even after the disconnection, he received a bill on 18-4-2007 for an amount of Rs.899.50 PS. Immediately he approached the opposite party No.1 on 23-4-2007 and questioned about the illegal disconnection, the opposite party No.1 replied by using a platform language. Having felt insulted, the complainant surrendered the said telephone connection to the opposite party No.1 and settled the account by paying the balance amount of Rs.560/- upto 23-4-2007 by deducting the refundable deposit and also surrendered the instrument, which was supplied by the opposite party No.1. On this aspect of the case, he refers to Exs.A.2 and A.4, which clearly support the case of the complainant i.e. on 23-4-2007 final settlement was made in between the complainant and opposite party No.1, as a result of which the complainant has paid the entire outstanding amount of the internet services up to 23-4-2007. Thus, the final settlement was concluded. Even after making a final settlement, again the complainant received a demand bill for the month of May, 2007 for an amount of Rs.688/-. On this aspect of the case, he refers to Ex.A.5, which is a demand bill for Rs.688/-, when the complainant approached the opposite party No.1, a vague reply was given and after some days, the opposite party No.1 sent some musclemen to the house of the complainant and abused him in filthy language and demanded to pay the amount covered under Ex.A.5. It is not out of place to mention here that a final settlement was made in between the complainant and opposite party No.1, as a result of which the complainant paid the entire amount outstanding up to 23-4-2007 and also surrendered the instrument and obtained receipt to that effect as in Ex.A.4. Even after having made the final settlement, again the opposite party No.1 sent another demand bill, which is illegal. This act on the part of opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is a senior lawyer of Khammam town and this being a fate to a senior lawyer. Then the fate of a common man can be imagined. It is nothing but a high handed attitude on the part of opposite parties to harass the customers by playing illegal tactics. In the instant case no satisfactory reply is forthcoming from the opposite parties and it is also not denied by the opposite parties about the harassment and mental agony having undergone by the complainant, on account of disconnection of the Internet illegally. Due to illegal disconnection of Internet service the complainant undergone untold mental harassment, pain and suffering. The complainant had lost rare opportunity of chitchatting with his sons. The purpose for which the complainant has obtained the internet connection has been defeated on account of illegal act on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, this is a clear act of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant is very much entitled to the compensation. Accordingly, the points No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for causing pain and suffering and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the litigation, within one month from the date of this order.
Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on 27th day of February, 2009.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMEBR
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM,
KHAMMAM
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for Complainants and opposite parties
-None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:
Ex.A.1 - Tata Tele services bill receipt dt.17-3-2007
Ex.A.2 - Tata indicom bill dt.18-4-2007 for Rs.899/-
Ex.A.3 - Tata indicom receipt dt.23-4-2007 for Rs.560/-
Ex.A.4 - Tata Indicom Receipt of receiving phone by the opposite parties dt.23-4-2007
Ex.A.5 - Tata indicom bill dt.18-5-2007 for Rs.688/-.
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:
-Nil-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMEBR
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM,
KHAMMAM
