The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a bonafide customer of the O.P Company since September, 2004 having post paid mobile connection No.9434954385 under Raiganj Telephone Exchange within West Bengal Telecom Circle, B.S.N.L.

Further case of the complainant is that he had deposited the sum of amount of Rs.5,500/- in the month of October, 2008 to avail ISD and International Roaming Facilities and he availed of himself such facility when he travelled to country France and he paid a maximum bill amount of Rs.1,500/- per month. Subsequently, the complainant visited Bangladesh in between the period 24^th to 29^th October, 2018 and before leaving for Bangladesh he availed of the international roaming facility, but the O.P did not sent any Text Message or any mobile call to him informing the facilities/packages. Being impressed on Indian Mobile Service Providers different competitive of packages of tariff including International Roaming Pack, he did not ask or search the O.P about International Roaming charges or packages. The complainant was considered regarding International Roaming Tariff based on his previous experience as well as various packages/concessional tariff prevailed by the O.P and also other service providers of mobile company in India. He appended a charge of tariff in INR for India when roaming in Bangladesh. The complainant also submits a common guideline of the O.Ps. The O.Ps had taken the security deposit for allowing ISD and International Roaming Facility. The complainant usage of international roaming service during the period of   Bangladesh stay crossed the security deposit amount or credit limit, the complainant’s services should have been disconnected and with the mala fide intent to take advantage of an innocent consumer the O.P did not disconnect the International Roaming Service with a view to extort large income from him amounting to Rs.1,74,303=04 P. Whereas the Bangladesh Telecom Regulatory Commission (BTRC) has fixed Tk.0.45 (INR=0.38) per minute as the uniform minimum call rate for all mobile phone operators and the maximum call rate has been kept unchanged at Tk.2 (INR=1.70) per minute, inpite of that BSNL in the plea of International Roaming and Overseas operators charges plus service tax, VAT etc. by add on they charged an exorbitant bill amount of Rs.1,74,343.04 P. in connection of International Roaming for Bangladesh. The O.P either by willingly or by gross irresponsible conduct did not feel the need to intimate their subscriber through SMS or email about the International Roaming Tariff and the O.P once toon deposit the security amount for ISD and International Roaming purpose they must have stopped service during International Roaming from 24^th to 29^th October, 2018 when accumulated amount was exceed twice or thrice of total security bill amount and it is failed to disconnect the services of the complainant. As per request of him the O.P provided 99 pages call list. He further stated that the O.P has intention to extract large sums of money from their bonafide subscriber using their tools and devices beyong from his rules. It has been very much aggrieved for the abnormal bill amount of Rs.1,74,343=03 P.

Upon this back ground the complainant prayed for relief for rational bill for the month of October, 2018. Particularly for the period of International Roaming restricted to security deposit amount of Rs.5,500/-.. and the data charges must be rectified and revised as per usual norms and table of tariff for International Roaming in Bangladesh for India given under page No.2 and also annex separately as Annexure II and that the call charges also to be considered according to packaged tariff of mobile service providers and that BSNL will have to stop further billing from the month of December 2018 at once and also prays for claim for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from BSNL.

The O.P Nos.1,2 & 3 submitted the W.V denying all the materials allegations as leveled against the O.Ps contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable in law in its present form and prayer and that there is no cause of action for filing this case under the Consumer Protection Act and that the complaint is barred by estoppels, acquiescence, waiver and limitation.

The specific case of the O.Ps is that the complainant is a bonafide customer of the BSNL and the International Roaming service was activated on his mobile No.9434054358 on 23.10.18 on request of the complainant and the SMS was sent to him through said mobile number regarding roaming facility as per BSNL Corporate Office guideline and that the billing of mobile usages is computerized process all over the Globe and is done automatically based upon the usages and tariff and the bill as system generated. In this case as per call details records the tariff charge in the bill in this case is Rs.1,74,344/- comprised of 5 segments. The O.P gave the 5 segments in the W.V and the bill is still outstanding against the complainant. The complainant has availed of the services from office having the knowledge of all those facts.

Upon this background the O.P. prays for dismissal of the case.

                              Points for decisions

1. Is the case maintainable in law in its present form and prayer?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

                            Decision with reasons

In order to prove the case the complainant has filed an examination in chief on affidavit and he is examined and cross examined as P.W.1. He filed some Xerox copy of documents appended to the complaint as annexure I, annexure II, annexure II/2, annexure III, annexure V, annexure VI and annexure VI/2. The O.P has examined Sri Aravind Kumar as O.P.W.1. The O.P also filed written notice of argument along with some Xerox copy of documents as annexure A, annexure B, annexure C, annexure D, annexure E etc.

Now, we like to discuss the relevant points along with the oral and documentary evidence of both sides. All the above points are taken up together for discussion for the brevity of the case. On going through the evidence of P.W.1 it is found that he has deposed all the facts as stated in his complaint. It is found from his evidence that his mobile number is 9434054385 and he deposited the amount of Rs.5,500/- as security deposit to avail of himself the International Roaming System from the O.P concerned. It is admitted by him that earlier he went to France and he availed himself the International Roaming System. When the bill amount of Rs.1,74,344/- was given to him he raised question about the figure of the amount of the bill sent by the O.P/BSNL Authority and he has submitted a chart of drawing of a bill regarding using the International Roaming System of the various service providers. In his cross examination he admitted that he has not yet paid Rs.1,74,303=04 P to the BSNL. It is also admitted by him that he has gone to France earlier and used the International Roaming System. But in support of the same he did not file any chart of the various service providers. It is baseless of the plea of the complainant that as his income is very low then the bill of using the International Roaming System will be very low.

On the other hand the O.P.W.1 stated that the bill was drawn in a computerized system all over the Globe and is done automatically based upon the usage of tariff and there is no chance of any clue to enhance the bill amount more than the computerized system of bill. Furthermore, on plane reading of the complaint, W.V and evidence of both sides it is clear that the case is related to drawing and payment of bill and this dispute is explained in the written complaint. Any dispute regarding telephone bill is not maintainable in the Forum as because it is disposed of according to Sec.7 of the Indian Telegraph Act.

Under the above facts and circumstances and above foregoing reason we are of the opinion that those points are decided against the complainant.

Hence, it is

                                         ORDERED

That this complaint case being no. CC-04/19 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.