Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/221/2018

Col. Shiv Kumar Anand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

30 Aug 2018

ORDER

01STRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint  No	:	221 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	18.04.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	30.08.2018

 

 

 

 

Col.Shiv Kumar Anand son of Sh.Inder Parkash Anand, Aged 74 years, r/o H.No.1581, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh.

              …………..Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Park, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 

…………… Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   SH.RAJAN DEWAN          PRESIDENT

                                MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA           MEMBER

SH.RAVINDER SINGH            MEMBER

           

Argued By: Complainant in person.

Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi, Adv. for Opposite Party

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant, a Retired Army Officer and Senior Citizen, is subscriber of post-paid Mobile Connection NO.98150-01098 & 98767-73923, both provided by OP Company. It is averred that the complainant is receiving monthly bill against the said mobile connections.  It is also averred that the complainant and his wife went to USA on 15.11.2017 and remained there from 15.11.2017 to 3.2.2018.  It is stated that the complainant never made any request to Opposite Party for use of their services during their visit to USA from 15.11.2017 to 3.2.2018.  It is also stated that the bill of the complainant used to remain between Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- monthly. 

         It is submitted that during the visit of the complainant to USA from 15.11.2017 to 3.2.2018, despite no use of telephone services, he received exaggerated telephone bills (Ann.C-1 to C-3) from the OP, as detailed below:-

 

Period	Amount
26.11.2017 to 25.12.2017	Rs.9216/-
26.12.2017 to 25.1.2018	Rs.10,892/-
26.1.2018 to 25.2.2018	Rs.7206/-

 

         It is also submitted that the complainant on returning to India, sent email dated 7.2.2018 to the Opposite Party to correct the bills (Ann.C-4), but they did nothing.  It is stated that the credit limit of the complainant was Rs.7200/- and the Opposite Party cannot exceed the credit limit of the complainant without his consent or request, but the Opposite Party in order to save their skin, at their own increased the limit of the complainant to cover up their wrong bills. The complainant again sent email dated 16.2.2018 and 20.3.2018 (Ann.C-5 & C-6) to the complainant to correct the bills, but the OP instead stopped the services of the said mobile connections arbitrarily & illegally from 11.4.2018.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging above act as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant has been charged as per rules & usage.  It is submitted that in case the subscriber uses the services by receiving calls/sending SMS etc., while abroad, without getting International Roaming Activated, a default pack of Rs.649/- per day is charged and activated and the same is done to avoid excessive billing by way of calls, data usage etc., otherwise the bill would have been very heavy.  It is stated that the complainant has been charged as per usage and there is no deficiency in service.  It is also stated that the credit limit has been exceeded by taking into consideration the past record and status of the complainant, otherwise the services would have been disconnected.  It is further stated that the roaming facility is activated overseas even if the call is received in the foreign country.  The Opposite Party also took objection to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable as the Opposite Party is governed by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 and not subject to The Consumer Protection Act. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OP and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

5]       The contention raised by the OP against jurisdiction before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, is untenable.

 

         The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Misc.Application No.204 of 2014 in R.P.No.1228 of 2013- Bharti Hexacom Ltd. Vs. Komal Prakash & Anr., has observed that after order of Apex Court in M.Krishnan case, Minister of Communication and I.T. by letter dated 24.1.2014 that powers of Telecom Authority are not vested in private telecom service providers and Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act is not applicable.  

         The Hon’ble National Commission in F.A.No.193 of 2014 – Vivek Bharadwaj Vs. Vodafone Essar East Ltd. & Ors., decided on 28.11.2016 has held that “Order in Bharti Hexacom Ltd. (Supra) passed by three Member’s Bench alleged to be larger Bench decided that powers of telegraph authority are now not vested in the private telecom service providers and also in BSNL; so, Section 7B of Telegraph Act have no application and Forums constituted under Consumer Protection Act are competent to entertain disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers.” 

         In view of the above judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, the present complaint before this Forum is maintainable. 

 

6]       The complainant has two post-paid Mobile connections i.e. NO.98150-01098 & 98767-73923 of OP/Airtel.  The complainant along with his wife had gone abroad and stayed in USA from 15.11.2017 to 3.2.2018.  The Opposite Party issued him three mobile bills, as detailed below:-

 

Period	Amount
26.11.2017 to 25.12.2017	Rs.9216/-
26.12.2017 to 25.1.2018	Rs.10,892/-
26.1.2018 to 25.2.2018	Rs.7206/-

 

7]       The credit limit provided to the complainant by the Opposite Party was only Rs.7200/- (Ann.C-1).

 

8]       No user/subscriber is permitted to use telephone facility for more than his credit limit made available by the concerned telephone company.  The complainant has never requested for enhancement of his credit limit, but the Opposite Party mischievously suo-motto enhanced the credit limit of the complainant as Rs.15000/- in the bill dated 27.2.2018 for the period 25.1.2018 to 25.2.2018.  The credit limit implicitly raised by the Opposite Party just to justify its unlawful exaggerated telephone bills from the complainant.

 

9]       The telephone facility provided to the complainant were only for India and he has never requested for any roaming facility of international calls beyond India, but surprisingly the Opposite Party raised the bills for roaming charges and use of international calls etc. on the said telephone connections of the complainant. The complainant has stated that he has never used telephone numbers for any incoming or outgoing calls during the period he remained in USA.  The Opposite Party also failed to place on record any evidence or document in proof of usage of international calls on the telephone number of the complainant while he was abroad from 15.11.2017 to 3.2.2018.  The Opposite Parties on the face of record have indulged into unfair trade practice for raising excessive and false bills against the telephone number of the complainant.  The monthly rental charges of both the above mentioned telephone number of the complainant was Rs.498/-. Any amount beyond Rs.498/- per month claimed by the Opposite Party from the complainant for the period from 15.11.2017 to 3.2.2018 is illegal and unjustified.  The claim of Opposite Party for any amount beyond Rs.1494/- for three months rental charges (Rs.498X3= 1494/-) being untenable is liable to be quashed. 

 

10]      Keeping in view the above facts, the present complaint is allowed with following directions to the Opposite Parties:-

1. The OP shall restore the services of both mobile numbers of the complainant i.e. NO.98150-01098 & 98767-7392;
2. The bill Ann.C-1 to Ann.C-3 stands quashed except for monthly rental charges of Rs.498/- each month w.e.f from 15.11.2017 to 3.2.2018;
3. The Opposite Party shall adjust the already deposited amount of Rs.9216/- in subsequent bills of the complainant;
4. The OP shall pay an amount of Rs.25000/- as compensatory cost on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant due to deficiency of service on their part;
5.  The OP shall also pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

         The OP shall comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which it shall also pay an additional compensatory cost of Rs.10000/-, apart from the above relief.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

30^th August, 2018                            Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER