WWW.LIVELAW.IN

11/29/2017

Cause Title/Judgement-Entry

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM NORTH EAST GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI D.C. OFFICE, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93 Complaint Case No. CC/196/2015 1. Mamtesh Sharma R/o E-268-C, G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi-93 Versus 1. MTNL Snnchar Hut, Near Pummy Sweets, Dilshad Garden Delhi-95

...........Complainant(s)

............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: Mr. N.K. Sharma PRESIDENT Ms. Sonica Mahrotra MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 16 Nov 2017 Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 196/15

In the matter of:

Smt. Mamtesh Sharma E 268 C, GTB Enclave Delhi-110093.

Complainant

Versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=8%2F10%2FCC%2F196%2F2015&dtofhearing=2017-11-16

1/4

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

11/29/2017

Cause Title/Judgement-Entry

Through its Manager/ A.R. Sanchar Hut, Near Pummy Sweets, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.

Opposite Party

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.07.2015 JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON : 02.11.2017 DATE OF DECISION : 16.11.2017

N.K.Sharma, President:Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:Order by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER 1. The complainant is an advocate by profession and submits that her work involves extensive use of internet. Therefore, complainant had got installed a MTNL Modem for rent of Rs. 100 per month from the OP. The complainant states that there was problem in internet connection in the month of February 2015 for which a complaint vide no. 1504 was lodged with OP. But no executive from OP office come to attend the complaint of the complainant or cure her grievance due to which she and her children suffered a lot of hardship and problems because of non available of internet connection as children had to obtain the study material from internet. So, therefore, finding no other option the complainant decided to purchase her own modem of NETGEAR on 14.02.2015 and visited the OP office at Dilshad Garden on 14.03.2015 to surrender the Modem of the OP for which she filed an application and requested the OP not to charge monthly rent of Modem from her in future. The complainant, on directions from the OP visited their Dilshad Garden MTNL office alongwith the application and order dated 14.03.2015 to handover the Modem, adopter and LAN cable to the OP where she met Shri Prem Chand and Shri Rajiv Sharma – officials of OP. The complainant stated that the OP was asking for return of WiFi Modem and not simple Modem alleging that the complainant had been given a WiFi Modem instead of simple one and started misbehaving with complainant and handed over a demand slip and slip of charges of Rs. 1350/- with the directions that if complainant doesn’t sign the slip the monthly charges of Rs. 100/- shall continue to be charged in the bill of complainant. The complainant had to sign the slip and later was supposed to meet Mr. Satish Chand and when the complainant met other officer of OP, after long arguments the complainant was given a receipt of Rs. 1,350/- by OP. The complainant was having her phone number 22596809 for last about 20 years and internet connection for 7-8 years and was regularly paying the rent of modem but on returning the same to OP, the OP staff charged amount of Rs. 1,350/- from complainant and continue to take rent of modem for a long time from complainant. The http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=8%2F10%2FCC%2F196%2F2015&dtofhearing=2017-11-16

2/4

11/29/2017

WWW.LIVELAW.IN Cause Title/Judgement-Entry

complainant made a written complaint to General Manager and Area Manager of OP on 27.03.2015 and paid the full amount for the month of May 2015 vide bill NO. 2711405520 but OP disconnected MTNL connection of the complainant and when the complainant approached the OP requesting to deposit the monthly bill, the OP refused and raising the illegal demand of Rs. 2,325/- whereas the monthly rent of complainant was Rs. 657.06p only. Therefore, the complainant had filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and has prayed that the OP be directed to continue the MTNL connection of complainant with immediate effect and has sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- for mental torture, pain and agony and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation charges. The complainant stated that after filing the present complaint before this Forum the OP has disconnected the phone connection of broadband due to non-payment of Rs. 2,350/-. The complainant paid Rs. 2,325/- to the OP on 5th June 2015 for restoration of connection because of urgent need of internet connection for her children to get university information and study material from internet. The complainant further stated that thereafter the SDO Shri Prem Chand gave a proposal to her to return the sterlite modem with a stamp of MTNL, LAN cable and other accessories to the SDO and issued a letter vide Sl No. SDOP(6.4) /STD/Legal Case/22596809/2015-16 dated 16.09.2015 to adjust the illegal amount of Rs. 1,517/- for which credit was given to complainant account and the same was to be adjusted in the bill of September 2015 to be generated in October 2015. However, the complainant states that the said amount has not been adjusted by OP till dated. 2. Notice was issued to OP and reply was filed on 15.10.2015 in which the OP took the plea that the complaint was without any cause of action and the grievance of complainant was rectified and the OP had agreed of the checking that of modem was simple on & not the WiFi one contrary to the previous impression/information and also assured the complainant that the same would be adjusted in the bill of October 2015. The OP further submitted that the OP has proceeded for refund of Rs. 1,350/- to complainant which would be adjusted in the current bill and therefore, the complaint was without any cause of action and devoid of merit. 3. The complainant filed rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit, placing on record payment receipt amounting to Rs. 2,350/- dated 5.6.2015, letter by OP dated 16.9.15, details of paid bill from January 2015 to Sep 2015, online registration documents of complainant’s son requiring internet and land line billing complaint information for non receipt of bills alongwith the complainant’s evidence. OP in its examination in Chief of Mr. Rajiv Kumar, SDO MTNL Dilshad Garden deposed that the grievance of complainant was addressed by OP and the OP has given complete rebate on rent for faulty period and an amount of Rs. 1517/- is given as rebate in bill dated 13.10.2015 and 13.11.15 which facts was informed to complainant on her mobile phone by the OP. Further OP deposed that the complainant had refund to sign the demand slip of Rs. 1350/- issued against the complainant with demand was generated in subsequent bills. 4. Written Arguments were filed by both the parties. Thereafter complainant had filed an application before us in Nov 2016 seeking relief against the unutilized bill of Rs. 1206/imposed on complainant by OP, placing on record letter dated 5.11.2016 where the complainant had requested to OP to disconnected the broad band connection with immediate effect attaching the last bill paid on 2.11.2016 for Rs. 1206/-, praying for directions to OP to reduce her bill to minimum plan of Rs. 310/-. Lastly, the complainant has placed on record letter no. SDOP 6.4 – SHD- 22596809/2017-18 dated 25.10.2017 written by OP to complainant alongwith unpaid bill for the Period of October 2016 informing her that the old http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=8%2F10%2FCC%2F196%2F2015&dtofhearing=2017-11-16

3/4

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

11/29/2017

Cause Title/Judgement-Entry

bill against her telephone number 22596809 dated 13.11.2016 due on 3.12.16 (bill for Oct 2016) for Rs. 1206/- + Rs. 40/- = Rs. 1246/- was still pending and that the bill paid through ICICI card on 02.11.2016 by the complainant to OP for Rs. 1206/- was for the period of September 2016. OP further informed complainant that if complainant pay the pending bill the services to the telephone could be started without delay. 5. We have heard the arguments on behalf of parties and have perused the case file very carefully. The grievance of complainant is the faulty service given by OP with regard to MTNL Internet Connection and wrongful disruption of service without any justified cause and raising illegal demands by bills dispute disconnection on May 2016 and non adjustment of amount despite assurance in writing and verbal which became cause of harassment, mental tension, pain and agony to the complainant. That the OP had offered to amicably settle the matter which was involving a adjustment and refund but made no serious attempts or efforts to settle the same were made by OP. We find that the OP despite written assurance of credit adjustment / rebate / refund given vide letter dated 16.9.2015 has failed to address problem of complainant in satisfactory manner and is, therefore, held liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is most appropriately ordered that the OP is directed to restore the MTNL connection of complainant with immediate effect on receipt of this order. Additionally we direct the OP to withdraw the bill of Rs. 1246/- for the month of October 2016 forthwith. We further direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- for mental harassment and pain and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation charges to complainant within 30 days of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the illegal bill of Rs. 1246/- from the date of raising of the bill i.e. November 2016 till realization. We direct the OP to regularize the bill cycle in future. 6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. 7. File be consigned to record room. (Announced on 16.11.2017)

(N.K. Sharma)

(Sonica Mehrotra)

President

Member

[ Mr. N.K. Sharma] PRESIDENT [ Ms. Sonica Mahrotra] MEMBER

http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=8%2F10%2FCC%2F196%2F2015&dtofhearing=2017-11-16

4/4