Haryana

Panchkula

CC/75/2015

SEEMA BAHADUR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

07 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	75 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	23.04.2015
Date of Decision	:	07.09.2015

                                                                                          

Seema Bahadur, H. No. 116/3, Rana Colony Khailil Street, Kalka-133302, District Panchkula (Haryana).

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. The Tata Teleservices Limited, 10^th Floor, Tower-1, Jeevan Bharty, 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.
2. Tata Teleservices Ltd. C/125, Industrial Area Phase-8,  Mohali-160071 (Punjab).
3. Tata Docomo Brand Store, Shop No. 715, Main Bazar, Kalka (Panchkula).
4. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawhar Lal Nehru Marg (old Minto Road) New Delhi-110002 (performa respondent).

                                                                         ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr. S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr. V.K. Singla, Advocate for complainant.

Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate for Ops no. 1 to 3 alongwith Ms. Amardeep Kaur, Legal Manager for the Ops no. 1 to 3.

OP no. 4 is already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complaint has been filed by the complainant Seema Bahadur against the OPs with the averments that the complainant was customer of Ops no. 1 to 3 and had a post paid mobile connection no. 09215525525.  The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops no. 1 to 3 were charging extra money in every monthly bill from him without providing the bill details.  On 30.05.2014, OP no. 1 to 3 deactivated the mobile connection of the complainant without giving any reasonable notice.  Due to disconnection, the complainant has a wrong message was conveyed to the 1158 persons who were telephonically connected with the complainant.  A bill of Rs. 1100/- dated 28.04.2014 (Annexure C1) was paid by the complainant.   The complainant was deposited the amount of Rs. 1900/- against raised bill of Rs. 1824/- dated 31.05.2014  (Annexure C2) but the number was not activated.  The complainant requested the Ops no. 1, 2 & 4 through e-mail (Annexure C3) to activate the mobile number.  The complainant was contacted to customer care and surprised to know that his plan was changed from Rs. 199/- to Rs. 299/ without the consent of the complainant.  The complainant was given a notice through e-mail and regd. post (Annexure C4)  to the Ops no. 1, 2 & 4.  The complainant has deposited the demanded amount from time to time and nothing is due against him but Ops have failed to activate the mobile number of the complainant.   The Ops no. 1 to 3  also violated the rules framed by the OP no. 4 regarding mobile number Portability Regulations, 2009 and the Cellular Companies are also governed by the rules drafted by the OP no.  The relevant rules ibid is reproduced as under:-

CHAPTER-III Rights and Obligations of Service Providers

Rights and obligations of Donor Operator  (4) In case of non-payment of any outstanding bill issued to the subscriber after the porting request, for the services availed till the disconnection of the mobile number from the network of the Donor Operator, within such time as specified in such bill, the Donor Operator shall give a notice of not less than seven days to the subscriber, notifying him that in case of non-payment within the said notice period, the Donor Operator shall request the Recipient Operator to disconnect the ported number.

(5) In case after expiry of such period such subscriber fails to make payments as specified in the notice, the Donor Operator shall communicate the details of such outstanding bills to the Recipient Operator through the Mobile Number Portability Service provider with an advice to take action for disconnecting the ported number.

(15).  Rights and obligations of Recipient Operator:- (1) the Recipient Operator shall pay to the Mobile Number Portability Service Provider, the Per Port Transaction charge at the rate as specified by the Authority from time to time, within fifteen days of receipt of the bill from the Mobile Number Portability Service provider or within such other time limit as may be mutually agreed upon.

(2) The Recipient Operator shall maintain records in respect of all mobile number for which porting requests have been rejected, for a minimum period of twelve months from the date of rejection of such requests.

(3) Where a request is made by the Donor Operator under sub regulation (5) of regulation 14 for disconnecting the ported number, the Recipient Operator shall issue a notice to the concerned subscriber, the period of which shall be not less than seven days and not more than fifteen days, about the request received from the Donor Operator and calling upon such subscriber to produce evidence of having settled such outstanding dues with the Donor Operator within such notice period and in case the subscriber produces such evidence of having settled dues, the Recipient Operator shall not take any further action in pursuance of the notice and shall inform the Donor Operator accordingly through Mobile Number Portability Service Provider.

(4) In case, before expiry of the period of specified in the notice number sub regulation (3), the subscriber fails to provide evidence of having settled such outstanding dues with the Donor Operator, the Recipient Operator shall disconnect the mobile number in such subscriber and inform the Mobile Number Portability Service provider forthwith about the disconnection of such mobile number and request for reversal of such mobile number to the Number Range Holder after expiry of ninety days.

(15) In case, after porting of a mobile number to the Recipient Operator’s network, there is disconnection of the mobile number for any reason other than the reason specified in sub regulation (4), the Recipient Operator shall, after ninety days of such disconnection, inform the Mobile Number Portability Service Provider about such disconnection with a request for reversal of such mobile number to the Number Range Holder. 

 

This act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OPs no. 1 to 3 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the mobile number 9215525525 was disconnected due to non-payment by the customer.  It is submitted that the reminders were given to the customer through various sms’s  wherein complainant was requested to make the payment in order to use the uninterrupted services of the del but the complainant did not bother to make the payment on time due to which the services of the del were disconnected on 06.09.2014.  It is submitted that after disconnection of services, no request for activation/restoration of service was received from the complainant.  It is submitted a bill dated 11.06.2014 for an amount of Rs. 2438/- was sent to the complainant but the complainant has made only a payment of Rs. 1220/- and balance amount of Rs. 1218/- remained unpaid till December, 2014.  It is submitted that to settle the matter, waiver of outstanding and payable amount of Rs. 1218 was posted in complainant’s account.  It is submitted that the complainant did not demand for reactivation of services and the services have not been restored till date.  It is submitted that the bill was generated by the system and no extra charges were levied in the bills dated 11.05.2014 & 11.06.2014.  It is submitted that the bill has been generated according to usage of the complainant and there was nothing wrong in the charges levied in the bill.  It is submitted that the respondent company duly replied the emails which were sent by the complainant and due information was also provided to the complainant.  It is submitted that the bill plan of Rs. 299 was changed only at the request of the complainant and till the date of disconnection the plan of Rs. 299 was activated.  It is submitted that if the complainant would have cleared the outstanding, the company would never had deactivated the services of del.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops No.1 to 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3. Notice was issued to the Op No. 4 through speed post but none has appeared on behalf of the Op No. 4. It is deemed to be served and the Op No. 4 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.06.2015.
4. Complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure CA alongwith documents Annexure C1 to C5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OPs no. 1 to 3 has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure RA alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to  R-3  and closed the evidence.
5. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and relating their arguments to the record, we are of the considered view that the complainant deserves to be non-suited for the reasons indicated hereunder.
6. There are precise affidavit-supported averments in the written statement that the disconnection of the services was preceded by a number of requests to the complainant to pay up the bill amount. The averment, in elaboration, is as under. A bill dated 11.06.2014, for an amount of Rs.2438/-, was forwarded to the complainant who, however, made a payment of Rs.1220/- only against it and the balance amount of Rs.1218/- remained unpaid till December 2014. It was only in the month of December that the complainant approached the OP which, “as goodwill gesture”, ordered waiver of the amount of the Rs.1218/-. That the complainant did not, at that point of time, demand the reactivation of services and that it was on that account only that the services were not restored is the precise plea made by the OP in the course of the written statement which proceeds to rely upon the various mails forwarded to the complainant. Qua the averment of overcharging, there is an equally precise averment that the relevant bills Annexure R-1 and R-2 had been generated according to uses and there was no element of any excess amount having been charge from the complainant. While not disputing the payment of Rs.1100/- and Rs.1900/- against bills dated 11.04.2014 and 11.05.2014 respectively, the OPs reiterated that the non-activation came about for want of a request in that behalf at the time the waiver of the balance amount of Rs.1218/- was ordered by the OPs in December 2014 as a goodwill gesture.
7. It is evident from the record that the complainant did not opt to file a replication to the written statement which contained precise premise of resistance to the averments made in the course of the complaint. On point of fact, it may be noticed that the complainant did not make a grievance of the non-reactivation even thereafter and it is only in this complaint that she has asked for activation of the connection.
8. It is, thus, evident that the de-activation was on account of non-payment of the bill dated 11.06.2014 and that the de-activation was preceded by a number of reminders issued by the OPs to the complainant for clearance of the pending bill. The relevant averment made by the OPs is buttressed by the contents of e-mails Annexure R-3.
9. The present is, thus, a matter in which the complainant has not come to the forum with clean hands inasmuchas there is no mention at all in the complaint about the non-payment (in toto) of the bill dated 11.06.2014 or the subsequent waiver thereof by the OPs as a “goodwill gesture”. It is further not even the plea by the complainant that a request for reactivation of services had been made at the time of the waiver aforementioned, or even thereafter, before the filing of the complaint. By the very nature of things, it was for the complainant to indicate the inclination to get the connection reactivated. There could well be a customer who would be content with the waiver of the amount and may not be interested in the further continuation of the connection. If the complainant was inclined to get the connection reactivated a pointed request therefor had to be made which was not made in this case.
10. In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and it shall stand dismissed.
11. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

 

Announced        (S.P.Attri)         (Anita Kapoor)            (Dharam Pal)

07.09.2015        Member                     Member                        President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                          

                                            

                                                          Dharam Pal                                                                                                President