BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.117 of 2014

Date of Instt. 11.4.2014

Date of Decision :28.11.2014

Sweety Sharma aged about 43 years wife of Manoj Kumar Sharma R/o House No.160, FF Rajiv Gandhi Vihar, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar, Punjab.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Tata Tele Services, Main Market Shop No.-5A, Model Town, Jalandhar through its Manager/Officer Incharge.

2. Tata Tele Services, C-125, Phase-8 Industrial Focal Point Mohali,Punjab through its Officer Incharge/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.KC Malhotra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.IS Bhatia Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S. Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant holds a mobile connection No.9041050874 account No.986292089 of opposite parties. No.1 & 2. This was a post paid connection at normal rates workable within India and the monthly bills are paid regularly, punctually on due date and without any default. Complainant on the inducement, allurement, advice and persuasion of the authorized executive of opposite parties prevailed upon her and made her agreeable to take an internet plan package for Rs.99/- for one month only with assurance that there would be no additional rent over and above the amount Rs.99/- and that this plan is the most cheapest, suitable plan as compared to the plan offered by other telecommunication companies. Accordingly, the complainant took this plain on 6.12.2013. Under this plan there was facility and availability of 750 MB download free of cost. The complainant received SMS message regarding the bill in the month of January 2014. The complainant was shocked, disappointed on receiving the bill through SMS. The complainant then contacted the opposite parties for clarification, details of the billed amount on various occasions in reference to the exorbitant bill amount. On one occasion in fact one of the agent of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 asked the complainant to deposit Rs.1364/- as full and final payment with respect to the bill under reference and also assured the complainant that immediately on payment of the said amount her connection would be restarted without any demur, which had been arbitrarily, malafidely stopped without any prior information or SMS message. The complainant in good faith believing as gentleman assurance(supra) deposited the amount of Rs.1400/- as assured by the executive of the opposite parties. Despite payment of amount aforesaid the account was not fully settled and liquidated. The complainant has been receiving pesky obnoxious threatening mobile calls that the amount as demanded be paid. The complainant has become victim of opposite parties and has fallen in the trap of opposite parties on false promise and assurance. Due to wrong billing, inflating and illegal charges the complainant took up the matter with opposite parties through emails, by calling customer care and mobile call with the hope of settelling the account amicably and mutually. A complaint was also got registered under No.401247615 and 40124809. The complainant contacted one Mr.Anju Rana on 14.2.2014 on anju.rana@competent.biz. Then also spoke to Mr.Sukhjit Singh at Chandigarh on 18.2.2014 to get the matter resolved but to no avail. Despite repeatedly taking up the matter with the opposite parties, they have failed to rectify their mistake. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to issue a revised bill with complete details date-wise and he is not liable to pay any amount after the date of disconnection/stoppage of internet connection. She has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the present complaint is simply an unwarranted litigation made in haste and is sheer waste of time of the forum with a view to avoid liability towards outstanding payment of Rs.4873/-. The amount levied in the bill is validly due and is against the services provided to the complainant, however, an unnecessary dispute has been created by the complainant by not making payment of charges due and payable. The services of the DEL No.9741050874 have been temporarily suspended due to non payment. The internet pack was activated on 6.12.2013 and since then customer had been using internet facility and same is very much evident from bill dated 5.1.2014 for the period of 3.12.2013 to 2.1.2014 and bill dated 5.2.2014 for the period of 3.1.2014 to 2.2.2014. That the complainant has been charged on the basis of usage only and no extra charges have been levied in the bills. The bills generated by the system of the company are correct and captured all add on packs activated on the DEL of the complainant from time to time, which have been accordingly charged in the bill. The fact is that complainant has consumed 10396 units(approx 909MB) of internet(data charges) in the bill dated 5.1.2014 and 12472 units (approx 1210 MB) in the bill dated 5.2.2014 and each month discount of 750 MB was duly credited in the bills as per the activated plan. The bill has been generated according to usage and there is nothing wrong in the charges levied in the bill. An amount of Rs.1400/- was deposited by the complainant and such payment is duly reflected in the bill dated 5.2.2014. However such payment was partial payment for the bill amounting to Rs.2351/- and was not towards any full and final settlement and no such confirmation was ever given to the complainant. They denied other material averments of the complaint.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered affidavits Ex.CA to Ex.CC alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to C9 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to R4 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsel for the parties and further gone through the written arguments submitted by them.

6. According to the complainant, she received a bill in the month of January 2014 for Rs.2351/- but she has opted plan for the package of Rs.99/- and bill should have been for Rs.99//- for internet charges plus Rs.889 call plan charges plus tax and under no circumstances could be Rs.2351/-. Further according to the complainant, she contacted opposite parties over the phone, written correspondence, emails etc but her grievance was not resolved in-spite of assurance in this regard. She contacted one Sukhjit Singh on phone on 18.2.2014 and also called customer care to get the matter resolved as her phone connection was arbitrarily stopped or disconnected at that point of time. Further according to the complainant, the executive of the opposite parties asked her to deposit Rs.1364 as full and final settlement and she immediately deposited Rs.1400/-. Further according to the complainant, the opposite parties can not disconnect the connection or internet without giving prior notice to the consumer. He further contended that when the complainant exceeded 750 MB download, the opposite parties did not give any intimation to her. On the other hand, according to the opposite parties, the complainant has been charged on the basis of actual usage and bills generated by the system of the company are correct. Further according to the opposite parties, complainant has consumed 10396 units(approx 909MB) in the internet(data charges) in the bill dated 5.1.2014 and 12472 units (approx 1210 MB) in the bill dated 5.2.2014 and after discount of 750 MB the bills were generated according to the usage by the complainant and there is nothing wrong in the impugned bills. Further according to the opposite parties, there is outstanding amount of Rs.4873/- but still with a view to settle the matter amicably, they are willing to accord a goodwill waiver of Rs.1000/- from the outstanding charges of Rs.4873/-, subject to the complainant agreeing to make the payment of remaining amount.

7. We have carefully considered the version of both the parties.

8. Ex.R1 is disputed bill of Rs.2351. Alongwith this bill there are details of the internet used by the consumer. In this bill discount of Rs.9848.40 has been given. Ex.R2 is second disputed bill. Along with this bill the details of the internet used by the consumer are attached. Both the bills are computer generated and there is nothing on record to come to the conclusion that there is anything wrong in the above said bills. No doubt complainant has taken a plan for 750 MB download free of cost but the usage of the internet exceeded the free limit. Opposite parties have given discount for 750 MB in their bills. So we are of the opinion that there is nothing wrong in the disputed bills and prayer of the complainant for directing the opposite parties to issue revised bill can not be accepted.

9. Second grievance of the complainant is that the services of the internet were suspended without giving any notice to the complainant. In support of this versions, She has relied upon Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd & Others Vs. Vimal Goenka, 2014(4) CLT 167 wherein it has been held as under:-

"We have already ourselves held in our earlier order dated 25.2.2014 while discussing the maintainability of the complaint that has given rise to these appeals that BSNL is no a Telegraph Authority. This has been reaffirmed by the GOI notification dated 4.2.2014 which we have cited above at para 4 above where it has been clearly stated that Powers of the Telegraph Authority have neither been vested nor are available to private telecom service providers and BSNL. As such, it is clear that BSNL not being a Telegraph Authority, it can not draw on the power and authority conferred by Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 to unilaterally debar/ disconnect any telephone without giving due notice to a subscriber, even if the dues are not paid on time. It is required to act within the ambit of the canons of natural justice and to give reasonable prior notice before resorting to any such disconnection, whether partial by barring certain facilities or in totality, unless there is any such empowering clause in the contract/agreement between BSNL and the subscriber".

10. In their written arguments, the opposite parties have admitted that service of the DEL No.9041050874 have been temporarily suspended due to non payment. The ratio of above authority is applicable on the facts of the present case. It is not the case of the opposite parties that they gave any prior notice or intimation to the complainant before temporarily suspending the internet connection. No such document has been produced on record. So complainant is entitled to compensation on this score only. Disconnection or temporarily suspending mobile or internet connection without prior notice to the consumer violates the principle of natural justice and constitute deficiency in service on the part of the service provider.

11. In view of above discussion, the complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2000/- in lump sump on account of compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. However the complainant is liable to pay outstanding amount. The amount awarded to the complainant may be adjusted against outstanding amount against her or in future bills. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

28.11.2014 Member President