CORAM:     Sh.P.D. GOEL                                             PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                         MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Proxy counsel for

                        Sh.Pankaj Satwalia, Counsel for complainant.

Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for OP.

PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.                 This case was earlier dismissed vide order dated 18.05.2011, by this Forum. Aggrieved against the said order, the complainant went in appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.  The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, vide its order dated 21.11.2011, accepted the appeal by setting aside the order dated 18.5.2011 and remanded the case to decide it on merits, after perusing the evidence, produced on record, and hearing the Counsel for the parties.

2.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant obtained Telephone & Broadband Connection bearing No. 0172-4676419 from the OP in the year 2008. While getting the aforesaid connection, the complainant provided the mobile number of her husband, 98144-36419, as an alternate contact number. It was alleged that on 10.6.2010, she requested the OP to disconnect the connection, which they did not, upon which the complainant sent a registered notice on 18.6.2010 and did not use the telephone no. or the internet. On 5.7.2010, the complainant deposited the usage charges upto 18.6.2010, but to her surprise, OP sent bill of Aug., 2010.

                   It is the allegation of the complainant that the OP started making calls to the alternate number provided by her, which was being used by her husband, and harassed him in one way or the other. Since OP was hurling threats to pay bills subsequent to July, 2010 amounting to Rs.2100/- to avoid the consequence of issuance of non-bailable warrants, the complainant and her husband deposited the amount vide Annexure C-8. Hence, this complaint.

3.                OP in their reply has taken a specific preliminary objection that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter. Nonetheless, on merit, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, it was pleaded that the complainant deposited the bill raised for the billing period upto 18.7.2010. That a bill for the monthly period from August, 2010 was raised qua the complainant’s connection No. 0172-4676419. While denying that any intimidation was ever caused to the complainant, it was asserted that OP was ready & willing to refund the amount of Rs.2100/-. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                We have heard the proxy Counsel for the complainant and the learned Counsel for the OP and have also perused the record.

6.                The learned proxy Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant obtained Telephone & Broadband Connection bearing No. 0172-4676419 from the OP in the year 2008 and at that time, she also provided the mobile No.98144-36419 of her husband, as an alternate contact number. That on 10.6.2010, the complainant made a request to the OP to disconnect the Broadband Connection bearing No. 0172-4676419. The complainant also sent a registered notice on 18.6.2010 for disconnection of the aforesaid connection and in the meantime, she did not use the internet. On 5.7.2010, the complainant deposited the usage charges upto 18.6.2010 but to her surprise, the OP sent bill of August, 2010.  It was further argued that the officials of the OP started making calls to the alternate number provided by the complainant, which was used by her husband. The officials of the OP also raised the threats to pay bills subsequent to July, 2010 amounting to Rs.2100/-, so she deposited the amount of Rs.2100/- vide Annexure C-8. It was lastly argued that the aforesaid acts of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practices.

7.                The learned Counsel for the OP very fairly and squarely admitted that the request of the complainant for disconnection of Telephone and Broadband Connection bearing No. 0172-4676419 was received on 10.6.2010. It was also admitted that notice dated 18.7.2010 was received from the complainant with a request to disconnect the said connection. It was also admitted that the complainant deposited the bills raised for the billing period upto 18.7.2010. It was also admitted that the bill for the monthly period of August, 2010 was raised with regard to the connection bearing No. 0172-4676419. The learned Counsel for the OP contended that OP never harassed the husband of the complainant nor raised any threat to pay bills subsequent to July, 2010 amounting to Rs.2100/-. However, the learned Counsel for the OP submitted that the OP is ready and willing to refund Rs.2100/-, the amount of the bill, so deposited by the complainant for the bills subsequent to July, 2010.

8.                Now the only point for consideration is whether the OP is guilty of rendering deficient services and also for unfair trade practices. The answer to this is in the affirmative.

9.                Admittedly, the complainant made a request for disconnection of telephone and broadband connection bearing No. 0172-4676419 qua Annexure C-1 to the OP. The postal receipts are Annexure C-1/A and C-1/B. The said fact is also admitted by the OP.

10.              It is also an admitted fact that the OP paid the usage charges of the said connection qua receipt Annexure C-2. It is also an admitted fact that the OP also issued the subsequent bills Annexures C-3 to C-6, which was paid by the complainant vide receipt Annexure C-7. The OP also issued the letter Annexure C-8, wherein, it has been stated that the payment of Rs.2100/- has been made by the complainant as full and final with regard to Phone No.0172-4676419 and nothing is pending.

11.              Now, it is proved on record that the complainant has made the request qua Annexure C-1 for disconnection of Telephone and Broadband Connection bearing No. 0172-4676419 but the OP failed to disconnect the same and on the contrary issued the subsequent bills Annexures C-3 to C-6. The learned Counsel for the OP had contended that the OP had to follow the procedure prior to disconnection, so on receipt of the request of the complainant, the connection in dispute could not be disconnected immediately. The said explanation given by the learned Counsel for the OP is neither acceptable nor plausible nor stands to reason as the OP issued subsequent bills Annexures C-3 to C-6 and the payment of the said bills was made by the complainant through receipt Annexure C-8. So, when the complainant had made a request through Annexure C-1 to disconnect the connection, there was no occasion for the OP to issue the subsequent bills. She has already paid the usage charges upto 18.6.2010 qua Annexure C-2.  It appears that firstly the OP had not disconnected the broadband connection of the complainant immediately and on the contrary had sent the subsequent bills qua Annexures C-3 to   C-6, which was so deposited by her. Therefore, the non-disconnection of Telephone and Broadband Connection bearing No. 0172-4676419 and issuance of said subsequent bills amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of OP.

12.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.2100/- to the complainant. OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.        This order be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the OP shall be liable to pay the awarded amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.

13.              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.