Sh.Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Karam Chand, Near S.D.M. office, Budhlada , District Mansa.


..... Complainant.


VERSUS


TATA indicom, Circle Office Tata Tele Service Limited, C-125, Phase VIII, Mohali, Industrial Focal Point, Mohali through its Managing Director.


..... Opposite Party


ORDER:-


This complaint has been filed by Sh.Naresh Kumar son of Sh. Karam Chand, a resident of Budhlada, District Mansa, against TATA indicom, Mohali through its Managing Director, under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), for correction in the impugned bill and for payment of compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of physical and mental harassment. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is described as under:


2. That the complainant secured mobile connection bearing No.

Contd........2

: 2 :


92161 23652 bearing Account No. 604006632 from the opposite party. The complainant is regularly making payment for making calls, as such, he is consumer under the opposite party, qua the same. The opposite party served bill No. 465851123 in the sum of Rs.251/- which was deposited by him in his office on 25.1.2008 in the sum of Rs.100/- each against receipts No.P.B.108-04924 and P.B.108-04920.

The opposite party, by mistake, mentioned telephone number as 9216123622 on the receipts issued to the complainant instead of mobile telephone No.09216123652 because of which amount was not credited to his account and opposite party disconnected his mobile connection. On being approached, the opposite party informed him that amount has not been credited to his account and gave assurance to adjust the same in the next bill. However, he did not adjust the amount in the bill No. 477598354 dated 11.2.2008. On his insistence, the complainant deposited the amount, but as he checked the bill again, he found that amount of Rs.50.75 has been claimed on account of incoming calls made from Ambala, whereas he never visited the said town during the relevant period.

The opposite party has further issued impugned bill No.490243119 dated 11.3.2008 in the sum of Rs.652/- upon the complainant without adjusting amount of Rs.200/- deposited by him on 25.1.2008. In the said bill Rs.120.75 has been charged on account of incoming calls stated to have been made on 19.2.2008, 25.2.2008, 27.2.2008 and 4.3.2008 from Ambala. In fact he did not visit said place on these dates. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and complainant is entitled for refund of excess amount and a sum of Rs.25/- for supply of details of calls, demanded illegally. He has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to the conduct of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.



3. On being put to notice, opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that it being false and vexatious is liable to be dismissed; that complainant has not

Contd........3

: 3 :


disclosed the material facts in the complaint and has prayed for highly exaggerated amount on account of compensation because of which his complaint was liable to be thrown out at a very thresh hold and there is no deficiency in service which may justify payment of compensation to the complainant, as sought in the complaint.

On merits, it is admitted that complainant is subscriber of mobile telephone connection and that he has been regularly making payment of bills drawn upon him by the opposite party. It is submitted that amount of Rs.51/- was waived in the bill of the complainant for the period 9.12.2007 to 8.1.2008 after he raised objection, that he deposited a sum of Rs.285/- instead of Rs.336/- for the said period. It is denied that in receipts issued to the complainant, wrong telephone number was mentioned or that due to the said reason, his telephone connection was disconnected.

It is also submitted that complainant has not mentioned the date when his mobile telephone was disconnected and a sum of Rs.50.75 has been charged on account of roaming in the bill dated 11.2.2008. It is also denied that a sum of Rs.120.75 has been illegally demanded from the complainant. It is submitted that as per the tariff plan offered by the complainant, itemised bill cannot be issued free of costs and every subscriber is supposed to make payment of Rs.25/-. It is denied that an amount of Rs.200/- has been again charged from the complainant in the impugned bill for which he has been subjected to mental and physical harassment. Rest of the averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs.


4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ext. C-1 and photo copies of documents Ext. C-2 to C-6 and closed the evidence. Since the defence of the opposite party was struck off on 19.9.2008, hence he did not tender into evidence any document in support of his case.


5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them,

Contd........4

: 4 :


carefully, with their kind assistance.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant, Sh.A.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, has submitted, at the out set, that the opposite party has by mistake mentioned wrong telephone connection number on receipts issued to the complainant, because of which amount could not be credited to his account.

Learned counsel further argued that opposite party cannot shift the error on the part of their dealer upon the complainant and stand of the opposite party regarding claim of excess amount from the complainant on account of incoming and roaming charges, is not corroborated by any evidence and he has charged the amount from the complainant, without providing him details of those calls free of costs, as such, they are deficient in rendering service to him, because of which he cannot escape liability to pay compensation and costs and to refund him excess amount received from him.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party Sh. S.S.Walia, Advocate, has submitted that amount deposited by the complainant has been adjusted in his future bills and as per his own version, error has taken place due to mentioning of wrong account number by the dealer of the opposite party, as such, he cannot attribute delay in adjustment of the said amount upon the opposite party.

Learned counsel argued that amount charged for roaming and incoming calls of Ambala, may be due to over lapping of towers in adjoining areas of State of Punjab and Haryana, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for which complainant may be granted compensation or costs.


8. As per admitted facts, mobile telephone connection No. 92161 23652 bearing Account No.604006632 has been issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant and he is making payment of the calls made thereon. As such, he is consumer qua the said telephone connection under them. The complainant has produced on record copy of

Contd........5

: 5 :


bill dated 11.1.2008, Ext.C-2, whereby a sum of Rs.251/- have been demanded from him after deduction of Rs.400/- already deposited by him. He has relied upon receipts issued by the dealer of the opposite party in the sum of Rs.200/-, but they have not produced on record by him. Due to withholding of these receipts adverse inference has to be drawn against the complainant. However, in the copy of the bill dated 11.2.2008 Ext.C-3, an amount of Rs.200/- is shown to have been adjusted.

The opposite party has demanded a sum of Rs.339.32 on account of current charges only. In the same bill, the opposite party has adjusted an amount of Rs.50.74. As such, he cannot be held to be deficient in rendering service to that extent. However, in the bill dated 11.3.2008 Ext.C-4, the opposite party has claimed an amount of Rs.340/- on account of previous balance and a sum of Rs.412.25, on account of current charges and they have demanded a sum of Rs.652/- after deduction of Rs.150/- already paid by the complainant. The complainant has not produced any receipt to show that he deposited a sum of Rs.340/- against bill Ext.C-3. However, the opposite party has failed to account for Rs.50/- charged in excess in bill dated 11.3.2008 Ext.C-4.

They have also charged a sum of Rs.120.75 from the complainant, as evident from copy of itemised bill dated 11.3.2008 for calls made from Ambala. The submission made by their counsel about the over lapping of towers in the adjoining area of Punjab and Haryana, are not corroborated by any documentary proof. As such, we are unable to attach much significance to the same especially when no such plea has been taken in the written version. Therefore, in our opinion, amount of Rs.170.25 has been charged in excess by the opposite party from the complainant. Therefore, we are of the view that ends of justice shall be fully met if direction is given to the opposite party to refund the said amount and to pay to the complainant adequate amount as mental and physical harassment and equal sum on account of costs for filing of the instant complaint.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, we partly allow the complaint and

Contd........6

: 6 :


direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.170.25 and to pay him Rs.500/-, on account of compensation, and equal sum on account of costs of filing of the instant complaint to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.