Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

259/2012

S.Jasyakumar Advocate, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Airell Cellular Ltd, registered office 301., - Opp.Party(s)

PartyIn Person

04 May 2016

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  30.11.2012

                                                                Order pronounced on:  04.05.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE 04^th    DAY OF MAY 2016

               

C.C.NO.259/2012

 

 

S.Jayakumar, Advocate

S/o.Late V.Soundararajan,

No.3,Siva Vishnu Street,

Perungudi,

Chennai 600 096.

                                                                                            ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	Aircel Cellular Limited, Registered Office No.301 (Old No:193) Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk Chennai 600 010, Represented by its Managing Director
	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                  06.12.2012

Counsel for Complainant                      :Party in person

Counsel for Opposite party                      :M/s.Shivakumar & Suresh

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased RPG prepaid Cell-phone connection bearing no. 9841232761 in the year 2003.  Later the said prepaid connection was converted into postpaid connection offered a scheme called “Aircel Century Bonanza”. The billing period for the said connection every 15^th day of month to month. The Complainant also used internet connection for the said number opting to pay a sum of Rs.98/- for the internet unlimited usage. The credit limit for the said connection was at Rs. 3,800/-. The Opposite Party sent an SMS on 16.10.2012     to the Complainant that as he has to pay Rs.2,926/- for the billing period 15.09.2012  to 14.10.2012 dated 17.10.2012. The internet scheme also converted into Rs.128/- package for using 3G connection. The Complainant asked the Opposite Party how the bill went up to Rs. 2,926/-. The Opposite Party without any intimation to the Complainant reduced the credit limit to Rs.2076/- and he also disconnected the connection on 17.10.2012. The Complainant sent several mails to the Opposite Party about the reducing credit limit and also disconnected the mobile connection without any intimation. By reducing the credit limit and also by disconnecting the connection, the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service. Due to such disconnection the Complainant suffered with mental agony and also suffered with inconvenience.  Therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint seeking various reliefs including compensation with costs.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF: 

          The Complainant is the customer of the Opposite Party using the post-paid services since 10.08.2008 and he was activated PI 98 with 2G data. At his request, the connection was activated with 3G – top up Rs.92/- on 30.07.201. Subsequently, the Complainant has requested to activate the 3G Top up for Rs.128 on 25.09.2012 in-between the bill cycle. Hence he has been charged under the prorate basis in the bill dated 15.10.2012, as the customer used over and above prescribed limit MB data and as there was excessive usage by the petitioner before the billing plan change, the same resulted in billing of an amount of Rs.2,926/- on the petitioner. Hence, it is stated that the bills of answering respondent on Petitioner, are correct, and charges have been properly levied on the petitioner. The credit limit are revised regularly based on the pattern of usage of the customer by the operator, and as the Committed billing was very less in the previous months, hence his credit limit has been decreased from Rs.3,800 to 2,076 (please refer to clause 7 of page 2 of the bill of the petitioner). The present plan of the Complaint is SV super local at Rs.351/- plan. Hence, the billing made for the month October 2012 for Rs.2,926/- on 15.10.2012 is legally binding on the Complainant. The tariff plan has been clearly mentioned in the bill itself, and the petitioner was also liable to pay the bill by due date or on crossing the credit limit make interim payment even before due date of the bill. Hence, the said amount ought to have been paid on crossing the assigned credit limit. Anyway it is also clarified here that the due date of the bill dated 15.10.2012 was on or before 31.10.2012. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the last date for payment is 02.11.2012 as alleged. It is submitted that on crossing the credit limit, the subscriber has to make interim payment even before due date of the bill. Hence, the said amount ought to have been paid on crossing the assigned credit limit, and as the customer crossed the assigned credit limit Opposite Party legitimately barred the outgoing services of the petitioner, more so as the bill clarification was given to the customer on 16.10.2012 itself. It is completely baseless allegation of the petitioner that the credit limit SMS was sent to the customer on 17.10.2012, as even on 16.10.2012, the customer came to the Petitioner Customer Care Centre to discuss the issue of billing and in the bill dated 15.10.2012 it is clearly stating that the customer credit limit was revised from Rs.3,800 to Rs.2,076.  It is therefore clear that the customer was very well aware of the credit limit even on 16.10.2012. Hence the Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief ?

4. POINT:1

           It is an admitted fact that the Complainant obtained a Cell-phone connection bearing No. 9841232761 in the year 2003 from  the then RPG Cellular Limited and then the said company was  merged with the Opposite Party company  and the Complainant maintained the same number with the Opposite Party and he was also using internet connection and the billing for the said connection 15^th of every month, initially the credit limit was given to the Complainant for a sum of Rs.3,800/- and this credit  limit was maintained for the period 15.04.2012 to 14.09.2012 in Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 bills and for the period 15.09.2012 to 14.10.2012 the  credit limit was reduced to Rs.2,076 which was evidenced in Ex.A6  bill and the bill amount in Ex.A6 for the said period was Rs.2,926/- and thereafter the connection was  disconnected on  17.10.2012 by the Opposite Party.

          5. According to the Complainant the deficiency committed  by the Opposite Party are that, the Opposite Party without intimating to the Complainant the credit limit was reduced from Rs.3,800/- to  Rs.2,076/- and further on 17.10.2012 the mobile was  disconnected. Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 bills for the period 15.04.2012 to 14.05.2012 for 5 months the credit limit was given Rs.3,800/- without prior intimation in Ex.A6 bill dated 15.10.2012 for period 15.09.2012 to 14.10.2012 the credit limit was reduced to Rs. 2,076/- billing an amount of Rs.2,926/-. Further, on verification of Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 the tariff plan was “Aircel Century Bonanza”. whereas in Ex.A6 bill tariff plan referred as SV super local.  When the billing was done continuously in the tariff plan “Aircel Century Bonanza”, how without intimation to the Complainant the tariff plan changed to SV super local and reducing the credit limit to Rs.2,076/-. However the connection was disconnected on 17.10.2012 itself within the due date payable on 31.10.2012 as per Ex.A6 bill. The Opposite Party has not filed any document to prove that only with the knowledge of the Complainant he has changed the plan and reduced the credit limit of the Complainant.  Therefore, the Complainant proved that the Opposite Party changed the plan without the knowledge of the Complainant and reduced the credit limit from Rs.3,800/- to Rs.2,076/- and also disconnected the connection within the payment due date and thereby the Opposite Party has committed Deficiency in Service.

6.POINT:2

           There were several correspondences Ex.A8 to Ex.A23 between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. The Complainant seeks the 1^st relief to accept the average billing of Rs.810/- for the billing period 15.09.2012 to 14.10.2012. According to the Complainant in Ex.A6 the billing amount of Rs.2,926/- is an excessive billing and therefore he wants to accept the amount of Rs.810/- for the said bill. Normally the bill amount will vary month to month depending upon the usage. In Ex.A6 bill, the enclosures contains the usage of the Complainant  for the itemized   call for the  period  15.09.2012 to 14.10.2012 totaling to a sum of Rs.2,921.10 as charges. These itemized calls are not disputed specifically by the Complainant. Simply he would contend that he had not used for such a huge amount is not acceptable in view of that the itemized call is available in Ex.A6 itself. Therefore the request of the Complainant to accept the average amount of Rs.810/- for the Ex.A6 billing period is not sustainable and the same is rejected.

          7. However, the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service in respect of changing the plan of the Complainant and also by reducing the credit limits without his knowledge and further disconnected the connection within the due date of the payment and in view of the same the Complainant suffered with mental agony is acceptable. The Complainant is an advocate and he was put to inconvenience due to disconnection of the phone is very much reasonable.  Considering the obstacle he faced in discharging his professional duty and thereby the Complainant suffered with mental agony, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and also to pay a sum  of Rs.5,000/- litigation expenses would meet ends of justice.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and he faced obstacle in discharging his professional duty and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.  The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment. The Complaint in respect of the other relief is dismissed.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 04^th  day of May 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex. A1 dated 15.05.2012                  Bill for the month May 2012

Ex.A2 dated 15.06.2012                   Bill for the month June 2012

Ex.A3 dated 15.07.2012                   Bill for the month July 2012

Ex.A4 dated 15.08.2012                   Bill for the month August 2012

Ex.A5 dated 15.09.2012                   Bill for the month September 2012

Ex.A6 dated 15.10.2012                   Bill for the month October 2012

Ex.A7 dated 16.10.2012                   Copy of the token number PB045

 

Ex.A8 dated 17.10.2012                   Complaint preferred by Complainant

Ex.A9 dated 17.10.2012                   Acknowledgement by the Opposite Party

Ex.A10 dated 18.10.2012                 Mail communication by Complainant

Ex.A11 dated 18.10.2012                 Acknowledgement by the Opposite Party

Ex.A12 dated 18.10.2012                 Mail communication by Complainant

Ex.A13 dated 18.10.2012                 Reply by the Opposite Party

Ex.A14 dated 19.10.2012                 Mail communication by Complainant

Ex.A15 dated 20.10.2012                 Mail communication by Complainant

Ex.A16 dated 22.10.2012                 Mail communication by Complainant

Ex.A17 dated 22.10.2012                 Acknowledgement by the Opposite Party

Ex.A18 dated 22.10.2012                 Reply from  the Opposite Party

Ex.A19 dated 23.10.2012                 Mail communication by Complainant

Ex.A20 dated 23.10.2012                 Acknowledgement by the Opposite Party

Ex.A21 dated 24.10.2012                 Mail communication by Complainant

Ex.A22 dated 24.10.2012                 Mail communication by Complainant

Ex.A23 dated 25.10.2012                 Mail communication by Complainant

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1 dated 18.10.2012                   Mail Communications between the Complainant

                                               and the Opposite Party

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT