Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/175/2016

Dr. N.K. Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

27 Sep 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/175/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	14/03/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	27/09/2016

 

 

 

 

Dr. N.K. Singla s/o Sh. Om Parkash Singla, R/o H.No.346, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

VERSUS

 

The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:    DR.MANJIT SINGH                         PRESIDENT

                   MRS.SURJEET KAUR                     MEMBER

                   SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Dr. N.K. Singla, Complainant in person.
For Opposite Party	:	Sh. G.C. Babbar, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

                   The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, who is a senior citizen, had purchased a postpaid mobile connection no. 9464881116 from the Opposite Party on 04.08.2015 and paid Rs.719/- towards Security Rs.500/-, sim Rs.20/-, activation charges Rs.100/- and advance rent for one month Rs.99/-. On 19.08.2015, he received a message on his mobile for payment of Rs.231/- towards bill, upon which he contacted the JTO who told him not to pay the same as he would get the bill after 7^th of every month. Thereafter, again on 03.09.2015 the Complainant got a message for payment of above bill. Before the Complainant could contact the Opposite Party, his mobile got deactivated w.e.f. 07.09.2015. On contacting, the JTO advised him to deposit Rs.212/- and the rest amount shall be adjusted. The Complainant paid Rs.220/-. It has been alleged that even after payment of Rs.220/-, again a bill on 15.09.2015 was received for Rs.411/- which included the bill charges Rs.231/-.  Again the Complainant approached the JTO who told him that it would be adjusted in next bill.  Since the service to the mobile of the Complainant remained interrupted, he wrote a letter dated 17.10.2016 to the Opposite Party, but proper service to his mobile was not resumed. Eventually, on 04.11.2015, the Complainant sent an e-mail to the Chief G.M., detailing his grievance, who in turn ordered inquiry and entrusted the same to Sh. Ranjit Singh, JTO.  Thereafter, the Complainant met Sh. Ranjit Singh on 01.02.2016 and requested him to waive off the rent for the period his mobile remained deactivated and refund the penalties and taxes charges on the wrong bills. However, the said JTO only got reduced Rs.36/- charged as penalty and refused to take any other action, which forced the Complainant to surrender the connection on 05.02.2016, whereupon he was forced make payment of Rs.150/-, which he accordingly paid. Thereafter, on 17.02.2016 the Complainant visited the Opposite Party for getting his balance money, upon which he was told by the Accounts Department that it would be sent through Cheque after some time, but till the filing of the present Complaint, the Complainant did not receive the same. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

2.           Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party, seeking its version of the case.
3.           The Opposite Party in its written reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that as per the procedure in the computer the bills are generated on 7^th of each month. In the present case, since the connection of the Complainant was activated on 06.08.2015, the 1^st bill for Rs.231/- was generated and sent to him. However, the Complainant was advised not to deposit the said amount.  It has been denied that the connection was deactivated on 07.09.2015 rather the Complainant used his mobile on 07.09.2015 and onwards as per usage charge Annexure OP-1. It has been admitted that the Complaint had paid a sum of Rs.220/- on 09.09.2015 against the bill of Rs.411/-. It has been urged that the bill dated 07.09.2015 was issued for Rs.411/- including the amount of Rs.231/- which was earlier not paid along with current bill of Rs.180/-. Out of the total bill of Rs.411/-, the Complainant paid Rs.220/- and a sum of Rs.199/- i.e. Rs.100/- activation charges and advance rent of Rs.99/- was adjusted and Rs.8/- was kept in his credit. Again a bill dated 07.10.2015 of Rs.105/- after adjusting Rs.8/- was issued which the Complainant did not pay. Again a bill dated 07.11.2015 for Rs.228/- including the bill of Rs.105/- was issued, but the same was also not paid by the Complainant. Similarly, the bill dated 07.12.2015 for Rs.351/- including the arrears of Rs.228/- was issued which was also not paid and another bill dated 07.01.2016 for Rs.474/- including the arrears of Rs.351/- was issued, but the same was not paid. Out of Rs.474/- the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.150/- and on his request the late fee of Rs.30/- was waived and the advance rent credit of Rs.6.39/- was adjusted and a sum of Rs.287/- plus late fee of Rs.10/- was still due which he did not pay. Another bill dated 07.03.2016 for Rs.307/- i.e. Rs.297/- + Rs.10/- for late fee was issued and also not paid by the Complainant. Therefore, the mobile of the Complainant for incoming calls was closed on 03.01.2016 and for outgoing calls on 04.01.2016. The Complainant vide his application dated 05.02.2016 requested for the closure of his connection and agreed that the bill due may be adjusted from the security deposits. Accordingly, the connection was permanently closed on 05.02.2016 and the outstanding amount as adjusted from the security deposit of Rs.500/- and the balance amount of Rs.193/- was refunded by Cheque No.714269 dated 29.03.2016. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party has been controverted.
5.           Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
6.           We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Party and have perused the record carefully.
7.           There is no doubt about the fact that since the connection of the Complainant was activated on 06.08.2015, the 1st bill for Rs.231/- was generated and sent to him. However, the Complainant was advised not to deposit the said amount. The Complainant used his mobile on 07.09.2015 and onwards as per usage charge Annexure OP-1. The Complaint had paid a sum of Rs.220/- on 09.09.2015 against the bill of Rs.411/-. It has been urged by the Opposite Party that the bill dated 07.09.2015 was issued for Rs.411/- including the amount of Rs.231/- which was earlier not paid along with current bill of Rs.180/-. Out of the total bill of Rs.411/-, the Complainant paid Rs.220/- and a sum of Rs.199/- i.e. Rs.100/- activation charges and advance rent of Rs.99/- was adjusted and Rs.8/- was kept in his credit. Again a bill dated 07.10.2015 of Rs.105/- after adjusting Rs.8/- was issued which the Complainant did not pay. Again a bill dated 07.11.2015 for Rs.228/- including the bill of Rs.105/- was issued, but the same was also not paid by the Complainant. Similarly, the bill dated 07.12.2015 for Rs.351/- including the arrears of Rs.228/- was issued which was also not paid and another bill dated 07.01.2016 for Rs.474/- including the arrears of Rs.351/- was issued, but the same was not paid. Out of Rs.474/- the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.150/- and on his request the late fee of Rs.30/- was waived and the advance rent credit of Rs.6.39/- was adjusted and a sum of Rs.287/- plus late fee of Rs.10/- was still due which he did not pay. Another bill dated 07.03.2016 for Rs.307/- i.e. Rs.297/- + Rs.10/- for late fee was issued and also not paid by the Complainant. Therefore, the mobile of the Complainant for incoming calls was closed on 03.01.2016 and for outgoing calls on 04.01.2016. The Complainant vide his application dated 05.02.2016 requested for the closure of his connection and agreed that the bill due may be adjusted from the security deposits. Accordingly, the connection was permanently closed on 05.02.2016 and the outstanding amount as adjusted from the security deposit of Rs.500/- and the balance amount of Rs.193/- was refunded by Cheque No.714269 dated 29.03.2016. In these set of circumstances, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Party. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8.           For the reasons recorded supra, the conclusion becomes irresistible that complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service & unfair trade practice against the Opposite Party. Thus, the Complaint is dismissed.       
9.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

27^th September, 2016                                          Sd/-         

[DR.MANJIT SINGH]

PRESIDENT

                                                Sd/-

[SURJEET KAUR]

MEMBER   

Sd/-

 [SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

                                                                                MEMBER

“Dutt”