Complaint filed on: 20.04.2012

                                                      Disposed on: 19.04.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.833/2012

DATED THIS THE 19^th APRIL OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Mr.Kannan Pandi

Faith Block 217,

Purva Grace Apartments, Amruth Halli,

Bengaluru-92

By Adv.Sri.Madhukar.S    

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

Airtel

Nodal Officer

No.55, Divyasree towers

Bannerghatta Road,

Benglauru-29

By Advocate – Vakalath not filed

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the deficiency in service against the Opposite party, alleging the excess bill amount and barring of outgoing calls for his mobile SIM no.8105006688 from 16.01.12 and thereby has claimed the total compensation amount of Rs.2 lakhs.

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that on 12.02.12 the outgoing calls of his mobile 8105006688 were barred by the Opposite party/Service provider without giving prior intimation to him and on enquiry he learnt that because of pending of outstanding bill amounting to Rs.6,734/- payable as on 20.02.12, they barred the calls. He sought for clarification and then he was informed that GPRS was activated in his mobile number being the result of excess billing. The Opposite party asked him to clear excess outstanding bills and sent their agents on 10.03.12 and threatened him to clear the bills for which he filed the police complaint and later issued the legal notice dtd.06.03.12. The Opposite party sent the warning mails. The Opposite party did not act as per their assurance. They failed to extend the service and forced him to pay extra amount and harassed by unlawful means to recover the excess bills. Hence this complaint is filed.

          3. The Opposite party has filed the version contending that the complaint is not maintainable u/s 7-B of IT Act. Bill dtd.22.02.12 for the period 20.01.12 to 19.02.12 for Rs.6,250.30 towards the usage of internet facility also amounting to Rs.8,059.50 was not paid by him. The Complainant who activated the service from 16.01.12 for credit limit of Rs.1,000/-, surpassed the limit which empowers them to demand immediate payment of excess usage charges even before generating of the bill. Since the Complainant did not make the payments they were compelled to bar the outgoing calls from 14.02.12. From the inception of the activation, the Complainant got the GPRS facility. The complaint becomes liable to be dismissed.

          4. The Complainant and the official of the Opposite party filed their affidavit evidences and have relied on Ex-A1 to A8 and Ex-B1 documents respectively. Written arguments were filed by both side. Arguments were heard. Perused the records.  

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complaint is not maintainable as alleged by the Opposite party ?
2. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged deficiency in service in baring the outgoing calls and billing in his mobile usage ?
3. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) Negative

3) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The Undisputed facts reveal that the Complainant got the service of the Opposite party/Service provider to use his Mobile SIM Card No.8105006688 from 16.01.12. Outgoing calls were barred by the Opposite party from 12.02.12. On enquiry he learnt that pending of outstanding bill which exceeds the credit limit of Rs.1,000/- became the reason. Further enquiry revealed that GPRS system used by him also was another reason for exceeding the credit limit.

8. It is also undisputed that on 14.02.12, he requested the Opposite party through email shown in 3^rd sheet of Ex-A7, to activate his outgoing calls and to increase his credit limit as he has paid Rs.500/- by furnishing the details. The Opposite party through email/Ex-A7 sheets replied that on payment of Rs.500/- on 14.02.12, credit limit was made to Rs.1,000/- and because of unbilled amount of Rs.8,282.40 as on 13.02.12, they were constrained to collect the excess amount than the credit limit and hence he was also informed to pay the net amount of Rs.6,317.72 within the stipulated period.

          9. It is also undisputed that Opposite party issued the bill Ex-A6 for the demanded amount of Rs.6,730.14 with due date 11.03.12 by furnishing the list of charges in detail. Such details for each and every calls were also furnished by the Opposite party wide Ex-B1 consisting of 14 pages. Ex-B1/A6 shows that the Complainant made calls worth Rs.217/- but utilized the internet usage to the extent of Rs.8,059.50.

          10. The Complainant had sent the email Ex-A5 with Ex-A4 form informing the Opposite party to negotiate amicably and to waive off the excess amount and confirm the act within 2 working days. Later he sent the legal notice Ex-A2 dtd.06.03.12 and 4 days thereafter lodged the police complaint as per endorsement Ex-A1. Ex-A1 shows that the Complainant had made allegations against unknown person. The Complainant again relying on Ex-A8, the news of “THE HINDU”, English News Paper contended that the Opposite party adopted unlawful method to demand the amount from him through their agents.

          11. The allegations of the Complainant that the agents of the Opposite party demanded the bill amount illegally cannot be accepted as he has not denied the usage of internet facility to the extent of around 90% of the bill amount from the inception day of SIM card itself. As observed in AIR 2010 SC 90 and the judgment in appeal 226/2009 dtd.22.10.09 of Hon’ble State Commission, the rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provide that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules and telephone connection can be disconnected by the authority for default on payment under rule 443 of the rules. Thereby the Complainant has no right to say that barring of outgoing calls after one month on usage of his phone has to be termed as unilateral or illegal disconnection.

          12. The Complainant who paid Rs.500/- was offered the credit limit of Rs.1,000/- and exceeding of that limit empowers the Opposite party to demand the excess amount and accordingly the reminders given by the Opposite party about the payment of excess amount even before the issuing of the bills cannot be termed as illegal or unlawful.

          13. The contention of the Complainant that he never asked for GPRS and thereby the Opposite party has to waive of the amount beyond the credit limit also becomes untenable as the Complainant from the day of inception of the SIM card utilized the service continuously for a period of nearly one month and such act impliedly mandates him to pay for such usage. It is not the case of the Complainant that he did not utilize the internet facility and then also the Opposite party demanded for the internet facility. The Complainant being active participant in availing the internet facility for long time continuously has no locus standi to say that he had not consented for GPRS system.

          14. The reading of emails of Opposite party shows that they reminded the Complainant to pay the amount exceeding the credit limit and thereafter only they barred the outgoing calls and thereafter also he made request to continue the said service and the said act also shows that he has intentionally used and enjoyed the internet facility through the same SIM card of the Opposite party and now he cannot say that he was deprived of his right to enjoy uninterrupted mobile service nearly on payment of Rs.500/-.

15. The Complainant in his affidavit evidence also has stated that he got the connection believing that world class uninterrupted mobile service is available to him and thereby such service provided by the Opposite party cannot be under estimated, so as to seek continuation of the same without making further payments for such utilization. Ex-B1 bill dtd.22.02.12 becomes self-explanatory for his hundreds of instances in utilizing the internet services. The Complainant has not stated under what authority he sought waiving of the bill amount exceeding the credit limit and extension of the internet service. In the legal notice also he has not mentioned the grounds for rising such grievances. The act of the Opposite party in demanding the excess amount than the credit limit and issuing reminders and barring of the outgoing calls cannot be considered as out of their service. The scope of their right and the said act cannot be considered as illegal or unenforceable. There is no deficiency in the part of their actions. Hence the Complainant has failed to establish the Consumer Dispute no.2.

          16. The Opposite party is not a Telegraph authority. Including the BSNL, they are all the licensees and hence the Telegraph Act cannot be made applicable to them. Hence this forum has the right to proceed with this case and thereby the Opposite party has failed to establish the Consumer Dispute no.1. In the result both the Consumer Disputes No.1 & 2 are answered in the negative.

          17. Consumer Dispute No.3: In view of finding of the Consumer Disputes No.1 & 2 the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The CC.No.833/2012 filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 19^th April of April 2017).

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant/s:

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party/s