BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==

Chamkaur Singh Brar, son of Sh.Khushal Singh, r/o H.No.3224, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.    Tata Teleservices Limited having its registered Office at 10th floor, Tower 1, Jeevan Bharti 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110001, New Delhi.

2.    Tata Teleservices Limited, having its local office at C-25, Phase VIII, Industrial Focal Point, Mohali, 160071, Punjab.

3.    Mr.Mohan, Sales representative/executive Officer, Nodal Office, Tata Teleservices Limited, A Block, 2nd Floor, DLF Building, IT Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.P.D.GOEL                           PRESIDENT

              SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL        MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA   MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Arun Singla, Counsel for the complainant.

 Sh.Gaurav Goel, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Gaurav 

 Goyal, Counsel for OP No.1 & 2

  OP No.3 already exparte.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMNER

1]           Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a Tata Dockomo 3G Stick from OP-3 on payment of Rs.2000/-.  It is averred that OP-3 assured that 3G services would also be available to him on the said connection at his native Village Chand Baja, District Faridkot as well as at Sunny Enclave, Mundi Kharar (Punjab). It is averred that the complainant also obtained a plan of Rs.500/- per month, out of which during the first 10 months, in every billing circle, Rs.200/- was to be deducted from the total bill amount in lieu of the price of the said stick.

              It is pleaded that when complainant tried to operate said 3G services at his native village, it did not work.  When it was brought to the notice of OPs at Chandigarh, they stated that the 3G services were not provided there and only 2G services were available.  It is also pleaded that complainant received first bill of Rs.275/- against which he deposited Rs.300/- in cash on 11.9.2011.  But just after two days, he received a message that a sum of Rs.1300/- is outstanding against him.  Thereafter, his connection was disconnected by the OPs on 16.9.2011 without any prior notice or intimation. The local outlet of OP at Sector 35, Chandigarh was contacted to know the reasons, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2]           OPs No.1 & 2 filed joint reply, wherein, they took preliminary objections to the effect that the telecom services, is out of the purview of Consumer Protection Act.

              On merits, it has been stated that none of the Telecom Service Providers is offering 3G services in all Districts of State of Punjab due to technical constraints. The 3G services are available only in selected areas and where 3G services are not available, it automatically converted into 2G services, It has been further pleaded that the relationship between the parties are inter-alia governed by terms and conditions mentioned on the Customer Application Form, which was duly signed by the complainant. It is pleaded that the complainant was allotted credit limit of Rs.1000/- per month and as such, he made the payment of Rs.300/- for the previous billing cycle but due to heavy usage, he had already exhausted much of the credit limit available to him for the next billing cycle.  Hence, he was intimated to deposit the adhoc payment to continue the services, but he did not deposit the same, which lead to temporary suspension of services. It is also pleaded that the complainant even did not make the bill payment of Rs.2140/-, as such his connection was permanently disconnected. Rest of the allegations have been denied by the OPs with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

3]           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]           We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]           The contention of the ld.Counsel for the complainant is that the complainant purchased Tata Dockomo 3G Stick from OPs for availing 3G services, but inspite of that he was not provided the necessary services, as promised by the OPs at the time of its sale. It is also contended that when complainant took this matter with OPs, they instead disconnected his connection without any prior intimation, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

6]           On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for the OPs argued that the complainant subscribed to postpaid connection against which a monthly credit limit is sanctioned as such the complainant was intimated to make the interim payment on exhausting the sanctioned credit limit of Rs.1000/-, which he totally ignored, thus, the services were initially barred and were later permanently disconnected when the complainant did not pay a sum of Rs.2140/-, which stands dues against usage of services.  He further argued that it was the complainant’s own act of non-payment of outstanding dues, which lead to suspension of services by disconnecting the connection permanently.

7]           We find merit in the arguments of ld.Counsel for the OPs.  The complainant was supposed to make the bill payments well in time against the usage of the services, but when he failed to make such payments, the OPs were fully justified in disconnecting his connection. It is not the complainant who suffered the loss; instead it is the OP Company who suffered financial loss on account of non-payment of bill by the complainant.

8]           In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the complaint is meritless. The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.