ISH KUMAR vs HFCL INFOTEL LTD

-AN appeal has been filed against the order dated 16. 7. 2008 by the learned District Forum, Bathinda. The appeal has been sent through post.

APPELLANT/complainant was having landline telephone connection 0164-5000519 of respondents (opposite parties-CONNECT) at his residence under the monthly tariff plan of Rs. 199 (calls upto Rs. 199 were free ). The bills issued by the opposite parties from time-to-time were being paid by the Complainant regularly. As alleged by the Complainant, bill for the period 16. 10. 2007 to 15. 11. 2007 was not served by the opposite parties despite complaints. However, amount of Rs. 260 as conveyed by the opposite party was deposited without getting the bill. Again the bill for the period 16. 11. 2007 to 15. 12. 2007 was not received by the complainant. On making complaint, duplicate bill was issued on 4. 1. 2008 i. e. after the due date of 3. 1. 2008. As claimed by the complainant, this bill was not deposited due to late receipt. Thereafter bill for Rs. 744 for the period 16. 12. 2007 to 15. 1. 2008 was received which includes amount of earlier bill and Rs. 56 as penalty for non-payment of earlier bill. It was also observed by the complainant that the opposite party had wrongly charged an amount of Rs. 30 on account of VAs and Rs. 50 on account of infotainment in the bills for the period 16. 11. 2007 to 15. 12. 2007 and 16. 12. 2007 to 15. 1. 08. The opposite parties failed to rectify the said bill when requested to do so by the complainant. On 14. 2. 2008, before commencement of the next billing cycle i. e. 16. 2. 2008 to 15. 3. 2008 complainant personally appeared before the opposite party-2 and moved an application stating the aforesaid fact and showing his willingness to deposit the amount. Request was also made by him to disconnect his telephone connection immediately as he was not satisfied with the services of the respondents. Opposite party No. 2 waived Rs. 225 on account of penalty, VAs and Infotainment charges and the balance amount against the bill of Rs. 744 i. e. Rs. 519 was deposited by the complainant. The telephone connection as requested by the complainant was not disconnected but no bill for the period 16. 1. 2008 to 15. 2. 2008 was issued by the opposite party-2. However, opposite parties again sent the bill dated 16. 3. 2008 for the period 16. 2. 2008 to 15. 3. 2008 for Rs. 703 which included penalty of Rs. 56. 18 and Rs. 340. 60 as the amount of previous bill. The said bill also included Rs. 30 as VAs and Rs. 50 as Infotainment Charges. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed complaint in the learned District Forum, Bathinda on 26. 3. 2008 and sought relief as under: (a) Direction to the opposite party to correct the bill for the period 16. 1. 2008 to 15. 2. 2008 (the period for which he did not receive the bill ). (b) Waive the bill amount for the period 16. 2. 2008 to 15. 3. 2008 (for which he had already applied for disconnection ). (c) Rs. 20,000 as compensation for mental tension and agony. (d) Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation.

The opposite parties in reply admitted that the complainant was holding land line telephone connection of the opposite parties (CONNECT) at his residence under monthly tariff plan of Rs. 199. They were issuing bills from time-to-time which were being received either by him or by his family members. Bill for the period 16. 12. 2007 to 15. 1. 2008 was also issued and due to non-payment of the bill for the previous month, amount of penalty was included as per rules. Similarly charges for VAS and Infotainment were included in the bill as per rule. However, to maintain good customer relations, opposite parties adjusted a sum of Rs. 225 on account of VAS and Infotainment Charges upto 15. 1. 2008. It was also admitted by the opposite party-2 that the complainant had made request on 14. 2. 2008 for disconnection of the connection. But at the same time the complainant executed the visit and Retention Forum when he visited the office of the opposite party-2 on 14. 2. 2008. As such he wanted to retain the same number due to which his connection was not disconnected and was still existing in his premises and was being used by him.

AFTER considering the evidence placed on record by means of affidavits/documents by the parties the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint being devoid of merit. Hence the appeal.

WE have gone through the detailed orders of the learned District Forum. The complainant has not been able to prove that opposite parties were not issuing bills regularly from time-to-time. We also find from the evidence on record that charges in connection with the said telephone have already been settled upto 15. 1. 2008. Out of total bill of Rs. 744 for the period 16. 12. 2007 to 15. 1. 2008, opposite parties waived Rs. 225 and the remaining amount of the bill i. e. Rs. 519 was deposited by the complainant. Again the complainant failed to deposit the bill for the period 16. 1. 2008 to 15. 2. 2008 which was subsequently added to his bill dated 16. 3. 2008 which he was liable to pay. The complainant gave a written request on 14. 2. 2008 for disconnection of his telephone connection but at the same time i. e. on 14. 2. 2008 he also filled in columns of the Retention Form for retaining his telephone connection and as the telephone was not disconnected by the opposite parties (photocopy of the Retention Forum is on record ).

IT is also observed that the complainant continued using his telephone even after his request for disconnection dated 14. 2. 2008. This is evident from the bill for the period 16. 2. 2008 to 15. 3. 2008. We, therefore, do not agree that bill amount for this period should be waived by the opposite parties. Complainant must pay for the services used by him.

WE, therefore, concur with the findings of the learned District Forum and affirm the same. The appeal is consequently dismissed in limine. The orders were reserved on September 12, 2008 now the orders be communicated to the parties. Appeal dismissed.