5. The complainant was informed that his complaint was registered vide docket No.366199389 and problem would be resolved by 21-00 hours of 10-06-2013. As the complaint was not resolved even by 12.00 Noon of 23-06-2013 the complainant sent another email on 23-06-2013 stating that his complaint vide docket Nos.366199389 and 364757997 were not resolved to date.
6. Subsequently, when the complainant rang to customer care No.121 extension 9 a lady received the call and told the complainant that his problem would be resolved by 17-06-2013 but did not resolve by the said date. Again the complainant rang to customer care on 17-06-2013 the gentleman who received call replied that he would call back the complainant in about 10 minutes. But even after waiting for half an hour the complainant was not called back. When the complainant sent another email on 23-06-2014 he was replied his complaint was registered vide docket No.368244701and the problem would be resolved by 9.00 P.M. of 24-06-2013 and the outstanding amount of Rs.256/-.
7. The complainant sent a registered letter to the opposite party No.1 on 06-07-2013 thanking for informing that the outstanding amount as minus and in fact it was deducted in the bill lNo.1589332004 for the period 16-06-2013 to 15-07-2013 and thus the contention of the complainant was accepted. In fact in that letter the complainant explained the opposite parties in detail how various amounts were collected in bills under the category cited above and also requested the opposite parties to change his post-paid connection to pre-paid connection. The complainant sent another email on 23-07-2013 in which he stated that none of his friends or relatives outside the State of Andhra Pradesh have Tata Fixed Lines form the complainant’s phone does not arise at all. The complainant further stated that even though he had been complaining about his problem since 30-05-2013 no action has been taken by the opposite parties except reducing the bill by 256/- in the bill for June-July, 2013. The complainant also stated in the said email that unless the list of phone numbers that he was charged under the entry “ STD calls to Tata Numbers to Fixed Lines “ is sent to him or the amount claimed under that entry is refunded to him, the complainant would not pay the latest bill i.e. bill No.1589332004 dt.18-07-2013 for the period 16-06-2013 to 15-07-2013. The opposite parties replied that the records were thoroughly checked and found that the complainant was correctly charged as per usage under STD and that there was no discrepancy. The complainant replied that through his email dt.24-07-2013 that it was not enough if it was checked by the office of the Tata Tele Services Ltd., but it was the complainant who has to check and be satisfied as it is the complainant, who is going to pay the bill and once again requested to send the call data and stated that he would not pay bills till his grievance is redressed. The complainant sent a registered letter dt.23-07-2013 to the opposite party No.1, which was booked on 24-07-2013 in which the complainant repeated his problem and stated that the complainant paid the bill Nos.1533233907 dt.,18-05-2013 and the bill No.1570876968 dt.18-06-2013 and then only demanded the call data hoping that Tata Tele Services Ltd., would be honest to redress the complainant’s grievance. The opposite parties replied to the email stating their inability to process the complainant’s request for providing call recordings but failed to state the reason for the inability. The complainant sent another email dt.29-07-2013 stating that unless he received the call recordings for the period 16-04-2013 to 11-07-2013 under the entry “ STD calls to Tata Numbers to Fixed Lines “ and was satisfied the latest bill would not be paid and the complainant further stated that if the issue was continued to be evaded the complainant would be left with no option except to proceed legally against the opposite parties to get his grievance redressed. The complainant sent another registered letter with acknowledgment dt.05-08-2013, which was booked on 07-08-2013 to the opposite party No.1 and copies were sent to the opposite parties 2 & 3 wherein the complainant stated that the bill for the period 16-06-2013 to 15-07-2013 was paid through internet and it was acknowledged and there was no outstanding dues. The complainant stated in his letter that itemized bills were not received within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter , the complainant would be left with no option except to proceed legally against the opposite parties for Redressal of his grievance. But the opposite parties completely failed to comply with the demand of the complainant.
8. The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 01-10-2013 calling upon them to furnish the call recordings for which the complainant was charged for the period 16-04-2013 to 11-07-02013 or refund the amount paid by him i.e. Rs.1,353-71 under the said entry from the date of receipt of the notice failing which the complainant would have no other option except approaching the appropriate Forum for Redressal and also liable to pay for the costs and consequences. Legal notice to the 1st opposite party was returned unserved. Notices were served on the opposite parties 2 & 3 on 04-10-2013 and 07-10-2013 respectively but failed to comply to the demands of the complainant.
9. The complainant reserves a right to know the reason why he has to pay certain charges to the opposite parties without getting any services and at the same time it is the duty of the opposite parties to furnish the complainant the call particulars for the disputed charges. The opposite parties utterly failed to provide the call particulars to the complainant or the reason why they could not furnish, which amounts to deficiency of service. Hence this complaint is filed against the opposite parties claiming a sum of Rs.1,353.71 towards disputed calls, Rs.500/- towards correspondence, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and sufferance, Rs.1500/- towards legal notice charges and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
10. Counter filed by the 1st opposite party stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. All the allegations made in the complaint are denied except those are admitted specifically. The 1st opposite party submits that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having their registered office at Jeeva Bharati, 10th floor, 124, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi and Andhra Pradesh Circle Office is located at Gyan Peeth, Hardware Park, Maheshwaram Taluk, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. The opposite party is licensed by the Govt. of India through Department of Telecommunication to establish maintain and operate basic telephone services and other value added services in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
11. The 1st opposite party submits that the complainant approached the opposite parties for wireless telephone connection and considering his request provided him with a telephone connection bearing No.08554-652413 with account No.201806032. The 1st opposite party submits that the complainant has availed the telephone services effectively from the opposite party and this complaint is filed with malafied intention for wrongful gain. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to dismissed. Further the 1st opposite party submits that the entire claim of the complainant is based on imaginary business loss. In fact, every month itemized bills were sent to the complainant regarding usage and which is self-sufficient to prove the usage of the complainant. It may not be out of place to state that the complainant intentionally has not filed the entire bills and he has filed only few pages of the bills, which goes to show that the intention of the complainant is not bonafied. Further, the 1st opposite party submits that all the charges are towards usage charges and there is no excess charges as alleged by the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further the 1st opposite party submits that without prejudice to the above submissions and without considering the merits of the case, the averments made in the complaint, it is submitted as follows:
“ It is not true and not correct to say that the opposite party has failed to provide prompt, efficient services and also deliberately claimed excess bill. In fact, this opposite party has claimed the amount only in respect of the usages and a detailed bill were issued to that effect. In any case the allegations made by the complainant are hereby denied. “
As already submitted above, the present dispute will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and the complainant is also not a consumer within the meaning of the Act and as such the allegations made in the complaint are hereby denied. Further, the 1st opposite party submits that there is no deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and this opposite party is not responsible for the business and financial loss to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Similarly there is no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint.
12. Further the 1st opposite party submits that there is no business loss and mental tension as alleged by the complainant and no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party to attract the provisions of Consumer Protection act. Similarly the complainant is also not entitled to compensation as claimed as the complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Further the 1st opposite party submits that the Hon’ble court be pleased to decide the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability of the present case before proceeding further on the merits of the case. Further the opposite party reserves the right to additional ground and please at the time of hearing. As there is no deficiency of service, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
13. Adoption memo filed by the opposite parties 2 & 3 adopting the counter filed on behalf of the opposite party No.1.
14. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 ?
3. To what relief ?
15. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit on his behalf and marked Ex.A1 to A11 documents. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 3, evidence on affidavit of the 1st opposite party has been field and no documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
16. POINT NO.1 – The counsel for the opposite parties argued the present dispute will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and the complainant is also not a consumer within the meaning of the Act and as such the allegations made in the complaint are hereby denied. Further, the counsel for the opposite parties argued that there is no deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and this opposite party is not responsible for the business and financial loss to the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
17. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and in support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision report in IV (2014) CPJ 25 Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shillong between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL) & Anr. Vs. Md. Imtiyaz, wherein it was held that “ It must be remembered that section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly states that the provisions of this act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. This obviously includes the Arbitration Act and even an Arbitration clause in an agreement is not a bar to the entertainment of a complaint by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Agencies even in respect of disputes relating to over-billing. This is well settled and needs no further elaboration.” The above proposition of law is applicable to the facts of the case on hand. As such this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. We held this point accordingly in favour of the complainant.
18. POINT NO.2 - The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is a Retired Principal, aged about 67 years and is the permanent resident of Ananthapuramu. The complainant got Fixed Wireless Telephone Connection from the opposite parties , which was given at Ananthapuramu with Telephone No.08554-652413, which is a post-paid connection till 11-07-2013 with an account No.201806032 and the complainant was asked to pay an amount of Rs.341-12 in total, which was claimed under the entry “ STD Calls to Tata Numbers to Fixed Lines” in the bill No.1533233907 for the 16-04-2013 to 15-05-2013, but call data was not furnished in the bill for which he was charged as above. The bill consists of 3 pages which is marked as Ex.A1 in which no itemized bills were furnished. Hence the allegations of the opposite parties in para 6 of their evidence on affidavit detailed itemized bills were sent to the complainant and the complainant has not filed the entire bills and filed only a few pages of the bills is completely false and baseless. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was asked to pay the amount of Rs.507-59 in total under bill No.1570876968 for the period 16-05-2013 to 15-06-2013, which is marked as Ex.A2, which consists of 3 pages and not itemized bills were furnished. However, the complainant paid the bill in order not to be called a defaulter of payment of bill and requested the opposite parties through his email dt.02-06-2013 which is marked as Ex.A11 for which the opposite party replied regarding the inconvenience caused to the complainant and his grievance would be resolved by 21 hours on 07-06-2013.
19. Again the complainant was asked to pay an amount of Rs.505/- in total in the bill No.1589332004 for the period 16-06-2013 to 15-07-2013, which is marked as Ex.A3. The complainant paid the bill through Internet and receipt of the payment of the bills was acknowledged by the opposite parties in column No.5 of page 2 of every bill. Further the counsel for the complainant submits that as the complaint of the complainant was not resolved, the complainant sent another email to the opposite parties about his grievance on 23-06-2013 for which he got reply that his complaint would be resolved by 24-06-2013, which is marked as Ex.A11.
20. Further, the counsel for the complainant submits that when the complainant rang to customer care No.121 extension 9, a lady who received the call told the complainant that his problem would be resolved by 17-06-2013, but no action taken in resolving the problem of the complainant. Once again the complainant rang to customer care on 17-06-2013 the gentleman who received the call replied that he would call back the complainant in about 10 minutes. But even after waiting for half an hour there was no call from the opposite party. When the complainant sent another email on 23-06-2013 for which the opposite party replied stating that his complaint was registered vide docket No.368244701 and the problem would be resolved by 9.00 P.M. on 24-06-2013 and the outstanding amount was Rs.256/-.
21. Further the counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant sent a registered letter to the 1st opposite party on 06-07-2013 which is marked as Ex.A4 thanking for informing that the outstanding amount as minus and in fact it was deducted in the bill No.1589332004 for the period 16-06-2013 to 15-07-2013 and thus the contention of the complainant was accepted. In fact, in that letter the complainant explained the opposite parties in detail how various amounts were collected in bills under the category cited above and also requested the opposite parties to change his post-paid connection to pre-paid connection.
22. Further the counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant sent another email on 23-07-2013 i.e. page 5 of Ex.A11 in which he stated that none of his friends or relatives outside the State of A.P. have Tata Fixed Phone connection and the question of calling Tata Fixed Lines from the complainant’s phone does not arise at all. The complainant also stated that even though he had been complaining about his problem since 30-05-2013, no action had been taken except reducing the bill by Rs.256/- in the bill for June-July, 2013, there was no response for the same except sending reply that there was no discrepancy in the bills. Further the counsel for the complainant submits that another email dt.24-07-2013 i.e. page 6 of Ex.A11 that it was not enough if it was checked by the office of the Tata Tele Services Ltd., but it was the complainant who had to check and be satisfied as it is the complainant, who is going to pay the bill and once again requested to send the call data for which the opposite parties replied that they were unable to process the request and provide call recordings. Further the counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant sent a registered letter dt.23-07-2013 to the 1st opposite party, which is marked as Ex.A5 in which the complainant repeated his problem and demanded call data hoping that Tata Tele Services would be honest to redress his grievance. Further the counsel for the complainant submits that email dt.30-07-2013 i.e. page 8 of Ex.A11 for which he was replied that they were unable to process the complainant’s request for providing call recordings for permanent disconnected numbers. The complainant submits that he demanded call data under the entry “ STD calls to Tata Numbers to Fixed Lines for the bills under Ex.A1 to A3 which under it was a postpaid connection but the opposite parties failed to state the reasons for their inability to process the complaint. “
23. The counsel for the complainant argued that insptie of repeated requests made by the complainant, the opposite parties never disclosed the call data for which the complainant has been charged. Further argued that even after issuance of legal notice to the opposite parties which is marked as Ex.A8 calling upon to furnish the call records for which the complainant was charged under the entry “ STD calls for Tata Numbers to Fixed Lines “ for the period 16-04-2013 to 11-07-2013 under Ex.A1 to A3 or refund the amount paid by him i.e. Rs.1353-71 under the said entry within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice; failing which the complainant would have no other option except approaching the Forum for Redressal of his grievance and the opposite parties would be held liable for the costs and consequences thereon. The counsel for the complainant argued that inspite of repeated requests, emails, legal notices, the opposite parties have failed to furnish the call recordings and thereby caused deficiency of service and mental agony to the complainant. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation as claimed by the complainant.
24. The counsel for the opposite parties argued that the 1st opposite party is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having their registered office at New Delhi . The counsel for the opposite parties further argued that the 1st opposite party is licensed by the Government of India through Department of Tele Communication to establish maintain and operate basic telephone services and other value added services in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Further the counsel for the opposite parties submits that the complainant is provided with telephone connection No.08554-652413 with account No.201806032. The counsel for the opposite parties submits that the complainant has availed the telephone services from the opposite party effectively and the present complainant is filed with a malafied intention for wrongful gain. The counsel for the opposite parties submits that the entire claim of the complainant is based on an imaginary business loss. In fact, every month a detailed itemized bills were sent to the complainant regarding usage and which is self-sufficient to prove the usage of the complainant. Further the counsel for the opposite party submits that it may not be out of place to state that the complainant intentionally has filed only few pages of the bills, which goes to show that the intention of the complainant is not bonafide. Further the counsel for the opposite parties submits that without prejudice to the above submissions and without considering the merits of the case, the averments made in the complaint it is submitted as follows:
“ It is not true and not correct to say that the opposite party has failed to provide prompt, efficient services and also deliberately claimed excess bill. In fact, this opposite party has claimed the amount only in respect of the usages and a detailed bill were issued to that effect. In any case the allegations made by the complainant are hereby denied. “
25. After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the documents, there is no dispute with regard to telephone connection given to the complainant and there is no dispute with regard to payment of the bills also. As seen from the documents Ex.A1, A2 and A3 are bills issued by the opposite parties to the complainant, which are paid by the complainant. As there were no details provided by the opposite parties in the bills issued by them with regard to the call particulars under the head “ STD calls to Tata number to fixed lines. “ As seen from the available documents, there is no call details particulars in Ex.A1, A2 and A3 as argued by the complainant. But whereas the counsel for the opposite parties argued that they have provided all the necessary particulars at the time of issuing bill itself but whereas the opposite parties failed to prove that they were furnished at the time of issuing the bills itself. Considering for a moment that they were issued the bills to the complainant with call data particulars, there is nothing wrong in providing with another copy when insisted by the complainant for verification. But the opposite parties have failed to provide the call data particulars for the above respective bills, which are marked as Ex.A1, A2 and A3. Further the opposite parties though deducted a sum of Rs.256/- from the complainant’s bill, on repeated requests made by the complainant to furnish call data particulars, there is no proper explanation for deduction of Rs.256/- in the complainant subsequent bill. It clearly shows that there is consumer discrepancy in the bills issued to the complainant.
26. Considering all the above facts, we are convinced that the opposite parties have not acted fairly in furnishing the call data particulars to the complainant when insisted by him for verification. The non-furnishing of call data particulars to the complainant, to which he is entitled for negligence and carelessness attitude of the opposite parties and there is no proper explanation given by the opposite parties for the disputed charges. Hence, we are of the view that the opposite parties not acted fairly and committed deficiency of service and are liable to furnish call data particulars and refund of the excess amount collected for the disputed calls. Further, we are convinced that the opposite parties have created lot of problems to the complainant in dragging on the matter to furnish the call data particulars when asked for.
27. POINT NO.3 - In the result, the complaint is partly allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to furnish the call data particulars and refund the amount of Rs.1,353.71 towards disputed calls and also liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and suffering and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of this order failing which interest shall be paid @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 18th day of December, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EVIDENCE ON CHIEF AFFIDAVITS
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
PW1 – Sr M.Mallikarjuna Rao,complainant RW1 - Sri Y.B.Seetharaman, Assistant Manager
Legal, Tata Tele Services Ltd., Hyderabad.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 – Bill No.1533233907 dt.18-05-2013 for Rs.645/- issued by the opposite party-
Company to the complainant.
Ex.A2 – Bill No.1570876968 dt.18-06-2013 for Rs.880/- issued by the opposite party-
Company to the complainant.
Ex.A3 – Bill No.1589332004 dt.18-07-2013 for Rs.1,285/- issued by the opposite party-
Company to the complainant.
Ex.A4 – Letter dt.06-07-2013 sent by the complainant to opposite party-company.
Ex.A5 – Letter dt.23-07-2013 sent by the complainant to the opposite party-company.
Ex.A6 – Letter dt.05-08-2013 sent by the complainant to the opposite party-company.
Ex.A7 – Postal receipts & Served postal acknowledgments of opposite parties 2 & 3.
Ex.A8 - Office copy of legal notice dt.01-10-2013 got issued by the complainant to the
Opposite parties 1 to 3.
Ex.A9 - Letter dt.27-11-2013 sent by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Ananthapuramu
to the counsel for the complainant.
Ex.A10- Returned postal cover addressed to the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A11- Photo copy of email dt.30-05-2013 sent by the complainant to opposite party-
company.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
Typed by JPNN
