Haryana

Ambala

CC/93/2015

Brigadier Rajindar Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Teleservices Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Bindu Jain

16 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                    Complaint Case No.      : 93 of 2015

Date of Institution         : 06-04-2015

                                                       Date of Decision            : 16.06.2017

                           

 

Brigadier Rajindar Kumar (VSM) Retd. Son of Late Shri Beni Persad, Advocate Supreme court of India Member International council of Jurists Bengalow No. 5 Sector 8 Ambala City.                                                                    

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Tata Teleservices Ltd. C125 Phase-8 Industrial Focal Point Mohali (Punjab).
2. Tata Teleservices Ltd. 10^th Floor, Tower-1, Jeewan Bharti 124 Connaught Circus New Delhi-1.
3. Tata Teleservices Ltd. through its out let Tat Docomo retails through its Manager Prem Nagar Opposite Petro Pump Ambala City.

 

                                                ……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA,  PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Ms. Bindu Jain, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. I.S. Gill, counsel for opposite parties.

 

ORDER.

 

                    In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was provided connection no. 7206002058 and he was not satisfied with the service as it was erratic. It is submitted that OPs failed to provide even for one day fault free service and every day complainant used to complaint to their rep at Prem Nagar Opposite Petrol Pump Ambala City, due to this complainant suffered heavily financially and professionally as lawyer. It is further submitted that the complainant was compelled to get the connection disconnected after making full and final payment of sum of Rs. 906/- by cheque drawn on SBI Ambala city in favour of TTLS and the cheque amount was debited from his savings account No. 10488020211 on 28-06-2014. Thereafter, the OPs though were deficient in providing service yet slapped the complainant with a demand notice dated 25-12-2004 for a sum of Rs. 906/- along with interest 2% pm. On which, the complainant replied to the said notice stating therein that to withdraw the fallacious notice and tender unconditional apology and compensate the complainant. But instead of tendering unconditional apology, repeatedly slapped the complainant with notice. The complainant visited the OP No. 3 to sort out the anomaly created by the Ops for demand of bill which was already cleared by the complainant but the OPs have not paid any heed to the genuine demands of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest @ 18 % per annum as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,500/- on account of litigation expenses.

 2.               Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint.  On merits, it is submitted that there is a bill amounting to Rs. 906/- is pending towards the complainant as per the last bill dated 05-09-2014. It is evidence from the bill of the complainant that the applicable discount of Rs. 193.5 towards temporary suspension of services. It is further submitted that the complainant never raised any complaint regarding services of the said del. Notably if any complaint is logged with the company’s helpline/call centre/customer care, a docket no. is issued against each such complaint. It is admitted that the complainant made a payment of Rs. 906/- in the month of June, 2014, but the same was not towards full and final settlement of dues as company did not receive any disconnection request from the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant made the payment of Rs. 1,124/- for the billing period 03-06-2014 to 02-07-2014 and bill dated 05-07-2014 and thereafter, again a payment of Rs. 1,124/- was received  from the complainant towards bill dated 06-08-2014  for billing period 03-07-2014 to 02-08-2014. As per the company records, complainant gave the disconnection request in the month of August 2014 and accordingly the del. was disconnected on 06-09-2014, but there was an outstanding Rs. 906/- after applicable temporary suspension discount. It is further submitted that the complainant herein is referring to the payment made in June 2014, wherein the dispute pertains to the payment in the month of September. It is further submitted that discrepancy in the dates may be there due to clerical/typo error. As such there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.  Rest of averments made by the complainant are denied. Thus the OPs have prayed that there is no fault on their part and sought for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                To prove his version, counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit as Annexure CX and CY alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered affidavit R1 and documents as annexure R2 and annexure R5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.    

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully. It is admitted fact that the complainant has availed the services of the OPs by using the post paid connection in question i.e. Tata Docomo No. 7206002058 issued by the OPs to the complainant.  Counsel for the complaint has contended that due to the deficient service of the OPs, complainant was compelled to get the connection disconnected after making full and final payment of sum of Rs. 906/- by cheque drawn on SBI Ambala city in favour of TTLS and the cheque amount was debited from his savings account No. 10488020211 on 28-06-2014 as proved by annexure C5. But complainant was served with a demand notice dated 25-12-2014 for a sum of Rs. 906/- along with interest 2% pm.

                   On the other hand counsel for the OPs has argued that there is a bill amounting to Rs. 906/- is pending towards the complainant as per the last bill dated 05-09-2014. It is further argued that complainant made a payment of Rs. 906/- in the month of June, 2014, but the same was not towards full and final settlement of dues as company did not receive any disconnection request from the complainant. It is further argued that that the complainant made the payment of Rs. 1,124/- for the billing period 03-06-2014 to 02-07-2014 vide bill dated 05-07-2014 as per annexure R3 and thereafter, again a payment of Rs. 1,124/- was received from the complainant towards bill dated 06-08-2014  for billing period 03-07-2014 to 02-08-2014 as per annexure R4. As per the company records, complainant gave the disconnection request in the month of August 2014 and accordingly the del. was disconnected on 06-09-2014, but there was an outstanding Rs. 906/- after applicable temporary suspension discount of Rs. 193.55. It is further argued that the complainant herein is referring to the payment made in June 2014, wherein the dispute pertains to the payment in the month of September. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs.

                   After hearing both the parties and gone through the case file carefully, we are of the considered view that the complainant herein is referring to the payment made in June 2014, whereas the dispute pertains to the payment in the month of September, 2014. Further the question of disconnection does not arise in the month of June 2014, whereas, the bill for the month of July, 2014 and August 2014 have also been paid by the complainant and the complainant has failed to produce any request letter for disconnection of the said connection, further failed to prove any complaint on customer care/helpline, as if any complaint is logged with the company’s helpline/call centre/customer care, a docket no. is issued against each such complaint.

                   On the other hand, counsel for the OPs has placed on the file statement of account belonging to the complainant, proved the version of the opposite parties.    

5.                 In view of the aforesaid discussion, complainant has failed to prove his case. As such, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence, the complaint is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED ON: 16.06.2017.                               (D.N. ARORA)

                            PRESIDENT       

         

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                      MEMBER

 

        (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                      MEMBER