Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/56/2014

M/s. Indira Computers Technologies (IC TECH), Tirupati, Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.P.Ravibabu, S/o. P. Sathya Narayana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Director, Tata Tele Services Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

Thota V.Ramesh

13 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                Filing Date:-07-10-2014                                                                                                               Order Date: -13-07-2015.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: - SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT.

                                               SMT.T.ANITHA, MEMBER.

           MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND

                                                             AND FIFTEEN

C.C.No.56/2014

Between

M/s. Indira Computers Technologies (IC Tech),

Having its business at D.No.17-4-305,

Prakasam Road, Tirupati, represented by its

Managing – Partner Mr. P.Ravibabu,

S/o. P.Sathyanarayana, 37 years residing at

Gandhi Road, Tirupati.                                                                        …. Complainant

 

And

i) The Executive Director,

Tata Tele Services Limited, Registered office

10^th Floor, Tower-1, Jeevan Bharati,

No.124, Connaught Circus,

New Delhi- 110001.

 

ii) The General Manager,

Tata Tele Service Limited, Circle office

No. 5-9-62, Khan Lateef Khan Estate,

Fateh Maidan Road, Basheerbagh,

Hyderabad.

 

Now the correct address furnished as per

Memo dated: 30.12.2014:-

 

The General Manager, Tata Tele Services Limited,

Circle Office Gyan Peeth, Hardware Park,

Plot No. 1 to 5, (Survey No. 1/1),

Imarath Kancha, Raviryal Village,

Maheshwaram Mandalam,

Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad,

Telangana State- 500 005.

 

iii) The Branch Manager, Tata Tele Services Limited,

T.P.Area, Opp. To Kalyan Residency, Tirupati.

 

 

                                                                                                           …. Opposite parties

 

           

 

          This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 25.06.2015 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.T.V.Ramesh, counsel for the complainant and opposite parties are remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           This complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties for not upgrading the internet connection.

           2. The brief facts of the case are: The complainant submits that the opposite parties 1 to 3 doing business in Tele Service Limited under different heads and one of the such is Tata Docomo in mobile technology and they are having the several branches all over the India and the opposite party no.1 which is the head office at New Delhi and the Zonal office is located in Hyderabad. And the opposite party no.3 branch office is located in Tirupati.

          3. Accordingly the opposite parties provided internet services to the complainant bearing phone no. 6646112 (Internet ID No.100050) with monthly rental schemes of Rs.1,149/- and the complainant is regularly paying the rent with an account no. 909934941. The complainant further submits that the opposite party no.3 approached the complainant and convinced the complainant to opt for an upgradation of existing internet plan of monthly rental of Rs.1,200/- per month. So that the complainant business will be benefited in all the ways. As the net speed will be 8 MBPS and also other benefits of downloading GB. The complainant has very much convinced and having belief and faith on the firm of the opposite party being existing customer of opposite parties has agreed and accepted for the upgradation of the plan and he paid a sum of Rs.16,180/- towards ARP Plan by way of cheque of SBI bearing no. 471731 dated 19.10.2013. After receipt of the same the opposite parties fails to provide the upgradation of the plan till today. The opposite parties fails to provide the same even after repeated requests, phone calls and mails to  the opposite party no.3 office for up gradation of plan. But the complainant vexed with the negligent attitude of the opposite parties towards him asked the opposite parties to disconnect the existing connection and asked for the refund of the amount which he has paid for up gradation. But the opposite parties kept the service alive and deducted the monthly rent from the complainant’s amount which he has paid for the up gradation and hence the complainant issued a legal notice on 30.06.2014, calling upon the opposite parties for the refund of deposited amount. But the opposite parties fails to comply the same hence the complainant constrained to file this present complaint by praying this Forum to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to refund the deposited amount a sum of Rs.16,181/- paid by the complainant for the upgradation of the internet connection, to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony towards damages for the and deficiency of service and to pay costs of Rs.5,000.

            4.  Initially notice was issued to all the opposite parties one Advocate C.V.Ramana Murthy filed Vakalat for opposite party no.1and he filed the written version and continuously absent for the remaining adjournments and he called absent and set exparte. As the opposite parties 2&3 remained absent as there was no representation on behalf of them called absent and set exparte.

            5.   The opposite party no.1 filed the written version by denying the allegations made by the complainant, and further contended that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complaint is filed against executive directors and general managers of the company, .infact the directors and general managers are not responsible for the day to day affairs of the said company and there were several managers working in different sections in the said company and the complaint is filed against the manager without mentioning and disclosing the name of the section manager. Hence on the ground of non - joinder of the necessary parties the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          6.  The opposite parties further contended that the complainant is used the internet connection without any interruption and disturbance and approached them for the up gradation of internet service but he has to comply the following terms and conditions mentioned below for up gradation of the service.

                  i) The customer has to first pay 12months rent including service tax to activate    

                     ARP plan.

                  ii) ARP plan will be activated from the next bill cycle.

                 iii) The customers are requested to clear all other dues including current month

                       rent as reflecting in the next bill.

                  iv) Next bill will also show all the adjustment of the payment already made to

                        activate ARP plan.

                   v) Monthly usage benefits will remain unchanged even during 3 months free

                        broadband service.

                   The opposite party no.1 submitted that the complainant fails to comply with the point no. (iii) mentioned above and hence since there was outstanding dues, the line was not activated. However the amount of Rs.16,180/- collected from the complainant the company delivered  the TAB as per the arrangement.

          7.   The opposite party further submits that they have raised the invoices from time to time and there after the complainant has not paid any amount towards the usage charges and other service chargers. Instead of clearing all the outstanding dues the complainant used internet and telephone connection without any interruption and filed the present complaint in order to harass the opposite parties but the opposite parties continuously informed the complainant from time to time to clear the outstanding dues. Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of them, the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  

           8. On behalf of the complainant one Mr.C.Ravibabu S/o. P.Sathyanarayana, Managing partner M/s. Indira computers Technologies, Tirupati filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A9, complainant filed written arguments and oral arguments were heard on behalf of the opposite parties no evidence on affidavit and no documents were filed and failed to filed their written arguments  in spite of several adjournments  hence  arguments of the complainant were heard and reserved for judgment.

          9. On the basis of the pleadings, affidavits, and documents filed by both parties the points for consideration are:     

              (i)      Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties?

              (ii)     Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

              (iii)    To what Result?

          10.Point No:-(i). There is no dispute that the complainant is the subscriber of the   opposite parties and utilizing the TATA Teleservices bearing phone no.6646112 with an internet ID No.1000570 with a monthly rental of 1149/- and he paid the rent through an account no.909934942 and also he paid Rs.16,180/- for up gradation of existing  internet connection with 8 mbps speed for existing connection with downloading facility with monthly rent of 1,200/- per month. The main case of the complainant is that the opposite party fails to provide the services with the up gradation of new plan for the existing connection. After receipt of the said amount the opposite parties fails to provide the services as promised by them with despite of several remainder letters and emails Ex.A5 &Ex.A6 by the complainant.  At last the complainant sent a letter on 01.05.2014 Ex.A7 to the opposite parties for the disconnection of the existing service, and also he sent several emails for the disconnection. But the opposite parties fail to disconnect the same. The complainant further stated that the opposite parties without providing the service they deducted the monthly rent from the above deposited amount.Rs.16,180/-.  Hence the complainant stated that due to the un fair trade practice and deficiency of service of the opposite party, the complainant suffered a lot.  The opposite party contended that the complainant has approached the company for up gradation of internet service and as per terms and conditions of their company the complainant has failed to comply the condition no. (iii) The customers are requested to clear all other dues including current month’s rent as reflecting the next bill is mentioned.

          11. As the complainant fails to comply with point no.3 and hence since there were outstanding dues, the line was not activated. However for the amount of Rs.16,180/- collected from the complainant  the company delivered the TAB as per the arrangement. The opposite parties further contended that since the date of obtaining the connection the complainant has not paid any amount towards the service charges and usage charges and also contended that they raised the invoices from time to time but the complainant without clearing the outstanding amount as used the internet and telephone connection without any interruption. The opposite parties relied Reportable Honourable Supreme Court Judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 between General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan and another very clear ‘held that the consumer forums have no jurisdiction to decide the issues arising under the Indian Telegraph Act and the customers have to approach the arbitrations for the redressal of their grievances. And further contended that this forum has no jurisdiction and also there is no deficiency of service. However, subsequently vide a letter dated 24.01.2014, the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, while responding to the communication received from the Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of West Bengal on 07.10.2013, in relation to the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in M.Krishnan (Supra) has clarified that the said decision involved a disputes between the Department of Telecommunications(DOT), which was a “Telegraph Authority” under the Indian Telegraph Act, as a service provider prior to the hiving off of telecom services in to a separate company, viz., Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited(BSNL). However, as the powers of a ‘Telegraph Authority’ are now not vested in private telecom service providers, as is the case here, and also in the BSNL, section 7B of the said Act will have no application and, therefore, the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protect Act, 1986 are competent to entertain the disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers. In the light of the said clarification, in the present case also the dispute between the consumer and the private telecom services that will provide internet service also. Hence this forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

       12. But except the written version the opposite parties fails to file the evidence on affidavit to prove their contentions in the written version and also fails to file any document to substantiate their case that the complainant is still due in payment of rent for the existing connection and also fails to prove that they have handed over the TAB to the complainant. If at all they have handed over the TAB to the complainant but what prevents them to file any acknowledgement regarding delivery of TAB to the complainant. Hence in the absence of any documentary proof that they rendered the services properly and the latches on part of the complainant only cannot be considered.  Except bald allegations the opposite parties fails to prove their bonafides on their part and fails to attend before the forum for the hearings of the case. That itself clearly shows that the opposite parties except the allegations in the written version they have not made  their case  in right prospective  with  documentary evidence and fails to place any reasons for not disconnecting the service connection even after several representations of the complainant i.e.,Ex.A7 and it clearly shows that  the opposite parties intentionally in order to set off the amount of the complainant which was paid for the up gradation of the internet service they fail to provide up gradation of internet service and to disconnect the existing connection even after several remainders of the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Accordingly this point is answered against the opposite parties.  

         13. Point: - (ii). As the point discussed above that there is a deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for Rs.16,180/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization. And also the complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.3000/- because of in action of the opposite parties in providing service regarding upgrading the internet connection as requested by the complainant.       

         14.Point (iii):-    In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally  to pay sum of Rs.16,180/- (rupees sixteen thousand one hundred and eighty only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization. The opposite parties further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-(rupees three thousands only)towards compensation for deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and for mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay  Rs.2,000/-(rupees two thousands only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties are further directed to comply with the above said order within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousands only) shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization.

            Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation in Open Forum, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open forum this the 13^th day of July, 2015.

         Sd/-                                                                                                                 Sd/-

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

                                   PW-1: Mr. P. Ravibabu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

 

 

    Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Party.

                      

                                                                                        NIL

                                  

              EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits (Ex-A)	Description of Documents
	A Photo copy of Firm registration certificate. Dt: 26.03.2008.
	A Photo copy of Partnership deed. Dt: 01.07.1998.
	A Photo copy Letter of Authorization & No objection. Dt: 04.08.2014.
	A True Copy of Telephone bill in the name of the complainant. Dt: 29.01.2013.
	A Copy of print outs of emails sent to opposite parties by the complainant.
	A Copy of print outs of exchange of emails between the complainant and the opposite parties.
	A Letter of disconnection with Acknowledgement. Dt: 01.05.2014.
	Office Copy of legal notice with Postal receipts. Dt: 30.06.2014.
	Office Copy of notice of Errata notice with Postal receipts. Dt: 28.07.2014.

 

                   

                                EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

 NIL

 

                                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                      President

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 

Copies to:  The Complainant.

                   The Opposite parties.