STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.213 of 2010)

                                                                   Date of Institution: 28.05.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  : 08.11.2010

Sh. Sailas Wahab, Aged about 49 years son of Sh. Samuel resident of House No.1266, Aryan Enclave, First Floor, Sector 51, Chandigarh.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1.      The Managing Director, HFCL Infotel Limited, B-71, Phase 71, Industrial Focal Point, Mohali.

2.      The Sales/Branch Manager (Connect), SCO No.417-418, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                        SH. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the appellant-complainant.

                        Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1-HFCL Infotel Ltd.

                        None for respondent No.2.

PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                     This is complainant’s appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) against the order dated 23.2.2010, passed by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum), vide which the complaint filed by him was dismissed on the ground that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

2.                     According to the complainant/appellant, a representative came from the office of the Sales/Branch Manager (Connect), SCO No.417-418, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh (OP No.2) and offered him for taking a Broadband connection to which he agreed. He wanted unlimited  plan for which “New Talk 399” at monthly rent of Rs.399/- was offered to him. However, the monthly bills always exceeded the amount of Rs.399/- but he continued using the said connection for about two years. In March 2009, when he enquired, he was told that the tariff plan given to him was not for unlimited use and therefore, he should obtain a tariff plan of Rs.766/- per month to use the Broadband unlimited connection. He agreed to the same w.e.f. March 2009. However, thereafter, he received bills in excess of Rs.766/-, which are Annexures C-1, C-3 and C-6. Some of the amounts were paid by him and even there was a settlement between the parties but the bills were not in accordance with the agreement or the tariff plan. He, therefore, served a legal notice (Annexure C-7) on the OPs but to no effect. He then filed the present complaint for a compensation of Rs.80,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; recovery of Rs.8,000/-, which was paid by him in excess and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.                     The complaint was opposed by the OPs/respondents alleging that in view of Section 7 (b) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Consumer Fora is not competent to entertain the complaint. It was admitted that he was granted Broadband connection with tariff plan of Rs.399/- but the same was not for unlimited use. The bills issued to the complainant were perfectly correct according to the usage but the complainant was a defaulter and never paid the bills in full. He was issued a bill for Rs.5,632/- and thereafter for Rs.7,134/- but he paid only a sum of Rs.1,500/-. When the bill for Rs.7,393/- was issued, he deposited Rs.8,000/-. A sum of Rs.8,234/- was due from him as arrears and a total bill of Rs.8,438/- was issued to him but he did not make any payment thereof. OPs, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complain with special and compensatory cost of Rs.50,000/-.

4.                     Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 23.2.2010 holding that the complainant himself was a defaulter and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant has challenged the said order through this appeal.

6.                     The copy of the order was received by the complainant on 25.2.2010. He could file this appeal within a period of 30 days but he filed the same on 28.5.2010 with a delay of 62 days. The complainant moved an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay alleging that he wrongly calculated the limitation period to be 90 days and came to know only on 27.5.2010 that the limitation for filing the appeal was 30 days. He submitted an affidavit in support of his contention.

7.                     The application was opposed.

8.                     We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.

9.                     The complainant has admitted having received the copy of the order on 25.2.2010. He was, therefore, required to file the present appeal within 30 days i.e. on 27.3.2010. He, however, filed the present appeal on 28.5.2010 with a delay of 62 days. The reason given for condoning the delay mentioned by him is that he wrongly calculated the limitation period to be 90 days, but cannot be accepted as justification for filing the appeal late because ignorance of law is no excuse. There is no denying the fact that the complainant had been using the Broadband connection, he had a telephone at his house and as mentioned in Para No.3 of the complaint, he not only travels out of State but has to go out of India with regard to his business dealings and otherwise. He had been using the internet connection for more than three years. He was agitating his rights before the Consumer Fora by filing this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We cannot believe that he was not aware of the limitation period in filing the appeal against the order passed against him. He cannot be said to be unaware of legal provisions in this respect. We, therefore, do not find any justification to condone the delay. The application moved by him is accordingly dismissed and consequently, the appeal also is dismissed.

10.                   Even on merits, the complainant has no case. The dispute between the parties is regarding the bills whether the same have been correctly prepared by the OPs or not. The dispute can be settled through Arbitration under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr, Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 decided on 9.9.2009 has held that in such cases, the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora is barred. 

11.       The complainant has not placed on file any such material to suggest if Tariff Plan 766 allowed him unlimited usage of the Internet. He has not produced any bill to show that he was ever charged Rs.766/- as monthly charges. Annexure C-1 is the bill dated 16.4.2009 showing that monthly charges were Rs.763.67Ps whereas Annexure C-4 bill dated 16.6.2009 shows that the monthly charges were Rs.675.73. Annexure C-6 is the bill dated 16.8.2009 showing the monthly charges as Rs.666/-. In none of the bills, he was charged Rs.766/- as claimed by him. On none of the bills, it is mentioned that the complainant was entitled to unlimited usage of the Internet. The basic document to make him entitled to the relief claimed by him has not been produced by the complainant and therefore, his complaint was bound to fail.

12.                   There is no dispute about it that whenever the bills were sent to him, the complainant did not make full payment of the billed amount. He was always in arrears. When the complainant himself was a defaulter, he cannot allege deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

13.                   In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and otherwise, on merits also, it is liable to be dismissed.

14.                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

8^th November 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(F.A. NO. 213 OF 2010)

Argued by:          Sh. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

                        Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1-HFCL Infotel Ltd.

                        None for respondent No.2.

Dated the 8^th day of November, 2010.

ORDER

                        Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal filed by the OPs has been dismissed.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)            (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL)     (NEENA SAHDHU)

                MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT                       MEMBER