SAILAS WAHAB Vs. HFCL INFOTEL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after 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 (herein after 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 complaint with special and compensatory cost of Rs. 50,000.