<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.05.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 31st JULY 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1219/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Ms. Vatsala Dhananjay,<br /> W/o Dhananjaya,<br /> Aged about 45 years,<br /> Residing at No.50, 4th C-Block,<br /> Koramangala,<br /> Near Raheja Residency,<br /> Bangalore – 560034.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.R.D.Pancham.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY BHARATHI AIRTEL LIMITED.,<br /> Divyashree Towers,<br /> No.55, Bannerghatta Road,<br /> Opp. Jayadeva Hospital,<br /> Bangalore – 560 029.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.B.J.Mahesh.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to waive Rs.10,362/- out of Rs.17,652-10 claimed under the demand bill and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed the services of the OP in respect of her mobile No.9845784175 under the scheme of post paid connection. Complainant had been to USA on 29.03.2008 and returned to India on 09.04.2008. While going to USA she had requested the OP to provide her International Roaming Facility and also indicate the tariff rates. Complainant made calls from USA between 30.03.2008 to 03.04.2008. She has also made few calls by using pre paid card purchased in USA. Before using the said pre paid card she got confirmed through her husband that she can make call by using the pre paid card through her cell phone where International Roaming was activated. It was also promised by the OP that she would not be charged for the same in her post paid bill. With all that to her utter shock and surprise monthly bill dated 12.04.2008 was sent for Rs.17,652/-. Under the said bill OP has charged Rs.10,362/- unreasonably. Though she had not used Mother India Calling Card. Complainant has already paid for the said calls in dollars at USA. Her repeated requests and demands made to the OP to rectify the said mistake even by causing legal notice went in futile. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances complainant is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP as per the call made by the complainant using International Roaming facility the bill was raised. The itemized statement produced by the OP speaks to the fact of number of calls made by the complainant using the facility afforded by the OP. OP has denied the contention of the complainant that she can make call to any phone number by using pre paid card from her cell phone. Complainant is aware of use of the post paid card and the billing system adopted by the OP. Contention of the complainant that she is liable to pay only Rs.7,290/- as against Rs.10,362/- is not correct. As the complainant has become the defaulter naturally OP withheld the connection. That act of the OP doesn’t amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has not produced any material to show that she purchased pre paid cards at USA and used the same. The other allegations made by the complainant are all baseless. Complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence along with the evidence of her husband and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the post paid connection facility from OP to her cell No.9845784175. Now the grievance of the complainant is that she had been to USA in between 29.03.2008 to 09.04.2008. During that time she got activated her phone with International Roaming facility and she made calls from USA. While making calls from USA she purchased the pre paid card. Before that she got confirmed from OP that she can call any phone number by using pre paid card through her cell phone where International Roaming facility was activated and OP is not going to charge the said calls in her post paid bill. Believing the said promise she purchased pre paid card and made calls.<br /> <br /> 7. As it is there is no substantial proof that OP executive had ever promised her that she can use the pre paid card at USA and the charges will not be included in her post paid bill. Under such circumstances the contention of the complainant in that regard without there being any written agreement or contract between complainant and OP can’t be believed. According to the complainant the monthly bill dated 12.04.2008 issued by the OP discloses the claim for Rs.17,652/-. Actually OP has charged Rs.10,362/- more, she is hardly liable to pay only Rs.7,290/-. According to the complainant the calls made by her using the pre paid cards at USA were also included in the post paid bill.<br /> <br /> 8. On the other hand the said fact is totally denied by the OP. According to the OP they have raised the bill as per the call made by the complainant using International roaming facility between 30.03.2008 to 03.04.2008. An itemized statement is produced which supports the said defence. As it is there is no proof that complainant has used the pre paid cards at USA. No such cards are produced. Admittedly OP do not have any branch in USA, it is only a contact between the OP and other service providers in USA with regard to uninterrupted service as well as tariffs for providing the said service. Under such circumstances the contention of the complainant appears to be baseless.<br /> <br /> 9. As the complainant failed to pay the bill amount naturally OP withheld the connection. That act of the OP can’t be termed as deficiency in service. Though complainant made several allegations with regard to use of force threatening calls etc., for that there is no support. When the complainant is in due of bill amount naturally in usual course of business OP might have made some calls, that demand can’t be termed as highhandedness. We find there is a force in the defence of the OP that due to lack of proper communication between the informant of the complainant and the complainant, complainant is on the wrong belief that she can use the pre paid cards at USA through her cell phone and that amount will not be included in the post paid bill.<br /> <br /> 10. It is an admitted that toll free number can’t be dialed from cell phone, they can be dialed only from land line, but it is not so in this case. Complainant used the cell phone extensively may be under the wrong impression for that OP can’t be blamed. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and that OP has raised the bill on the basis of the actual use of the said International roaming facility borne out by the itemized statement the present complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Under such circumstances we find there is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of July 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />