State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hfcl Infotel Limited vs Bhoj Raj Goyal on 29 November, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1081 of 2005
Date of institution : 19.8.2005
Date of decision : 29.11.2010
HFCL Infotel Limited, Regd. Office at B-71, Phase-VII, Industrial Area, Mohali
and Branch Office at 350-352, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through Sh. Sanjiv
Kumar, Legal Advisor and Power of Attorney holder.
.......Appellants
Versus
Bhoj Raj Goyal s/o Sh. Ram Krishan, resident of Street No.1, Agar Nagar,
Opposite Gaushala, Sangrur.
......Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 24.3.2005 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sangrur.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : None.
For the respondent : Shri Tajender Joshi, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The appellants had launched special drive for enrolling new subscribers for telephone connections. Under that scheme the respondent deposited a sum of Rs.825/- as refundable security with the appellants vide cheque dated 8.3.2004 and telephone connection No.01672-502848 was released to him by the appellants. Under the scheme the respondent was entitled to free outgoing facility on two numbers and the respondent gave those numbers as 0161- 2760330 and 0161-2544109. The appellants were requested to provide him First Appeal No.1081 of 2005. 2 double set as was promised by Arun Kumar representative of the appellants. These facilities were to be provided by the appellants to the respondent in the new billing cycle starting from 1.4.2004.
2. It was further pleaded that the appellants failed to provide these facilities to the respondent on lame excuses. The respondent contacted another official of the appellants on telephone no.5050505. He assured the respondent that he would look into the matter but nothing was done by him even. Then the respondent contacted another official of the appellants on complaint No.1920 at Mohali. He also assured the respondent to do the needful but nothing was done till the first week of May, 2004.
3. Instead of providing these facilities to the respondent, the appellants received the demand notice of Rs.2,500/- which was illegal as the respondent was making the payment of telephone bills regularly. Thereafter the appellants served a legal notice dated 21.8.2004 on the respondent raising the demand of Rs.2,995/-. The respondent contacted the officials of the appellants but in vain. Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants for the refund of Rs.825/-. The demand of Rs.2,995/- was also challenged. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
4. The appellants filed the written reply. It was pleaded that the respondent had deposited the amount under the scheme "Mere Apne" launched by the appellants in which free calls were to be provided to the persons who had taken two connections of landline telephones of connect scheme and not from outside. It was admitted that the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.825/- as installation charges and not as security. It was also admitted that the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.800/- with the appellants.
5. It was denied if double set was to be provided to the respondent. The demand notice of Rs.2,995/- was legal and valid. It related to the pending bills First Appeal No.1081 of 2005. 3 of telephone No.502848. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. Replication was filed by the respondent.
7. The respondent proved documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8. He also filed the affidavit of Lalit Bansal as Ex.C-9 and his own affidavit as Ex.C-10.
8. On the other hand, the appellants proved documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2. The appellants also filed the affidavit of Jaspreet Singh, Officer as Ex.R-3.
9. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.700/- vide impugned order dated 24.3.2005. The appellants were directed to refund the amount of Rs.825/- and to pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,000/-. They were also directed to withdraw the legal notice dated 21.8.2004 demanding an amount of Rs.2,995/- from the respondent.
10. Hence the appeal.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
12. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
13. It is admitted that the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.825/- with the appellants on which telephone connection No.01672-502848 was released to him. It was not denied that Arun Kumar was the representative of the appellants who had got filled the application Ex.C-2 from the respondent.
14. There is no document on the file to show if two set of telephones were to be provided by the appellants to the respondent or if free calls were to be provided on two other telephone connections taken by the respondent from other companies.
15. But at the same time the appellants have failed to prove if any notice was given by the appellants to the respondent prior to disconnection.
16. The appellants plead that the respondent had paid the bill for April 2004 but he had failed to pay subsequent bills. However only one bill for the month First Appeal No.1081 of 2005. 4 of May 2004 for Rs.872/- as Ex.C-6 has been proved. The bills for the months of June, July and August 2004 have not been produced.
17. One bill dated 1.10.2004 for Rs.2,266/- is proved as Ex.R1. This bill is for the period from 1.8.2004 to 30.9.2004 (Ex.R2). This bill also reveals that no call was made from this telephone during this period i.e. from 1.8.2004 to 30.9.2004. It clearly means that the telephone was disconnected by the appellants prior to this period. Moreover in this bill previous balance outstanding is shown as Rs.2,995/- but the break-up of this amount is not shown. Therefore there is no basis to hold if this amount was outstanding against the respondent. Moreover the telephone connection was already disconnected.
18. Similarly in the notice dated 21.8.2004 Ex.C3, the appellants demanded the amount of Rs.2,995/- as arrears without disclosing the period to which the amount related and without producing the telephone bills of those months. Moreover the appellants have threatened that the respondent will be prosecuted for committing offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 IPC. This is total mal-trade practice.
19. However the appellants have filed along with the appeal a chart of month- wise details as annexure-I. This chart has no evidentiary value as the original bills for the months of June, July and August have not been produced. Therefore disconnection of the telephone amounted to deficiency in service.
20. In view of the discussion held above, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
21. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.1,763/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 19.8.2005. This amount of Rs.1,763/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
22. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent. First Appeal No.1081 of 2005. 5
23. The arguments in this case were heard on 18.11.2010 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
24. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
November 29 , 2010 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER