OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.47/12
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Sri U.N.Deka - Member
Mrs. Deepali Das Roy -Complainant
W/o.Sri Arijit Roy,,
R/o House No..22,Near Milanpur Hills
Masjid No.2, Milanpur Hill Side,
Guwahati-781021
-vs-
1) Bharti Airtel Limited -Opp.Parties
Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, Phasi II,
New Delhi-70.
2) Circle Office, Bharti Airtel Limited,
Bharti House,Six Mile, Khanapara,
Guwahati-781022.
3) The Manager, Customer Care,
Bharti Airtel Limited, Bharti House, Six Mile,
Khanapara,Guwahati-781022.
Appearance-
Mrs. Deepali Das Roy herself appears for her case.
Date of exparte argument- 20.9.2016
Date of judgment- 7.10.2016
Judgment
1)This is a proceeding u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
2) The complaint filed by Mrs. Deepali Das Roy, against Bharati Airtel Ltd. and two of its arms, was admitted on 3.7.12, and notices were served upon them and they also filed their written statement on 8.10.13. The complainant filed her evidence in affidavit on 28.3.15 , but at the time of cross examination of the complainant sides’ witness, the opp.parties took several adjournments , but they remained absent on 29.1.16 totally; and in result, the case against them was proceeding on exparte vide this forum’s order dtd.29.1.16, but again this forum vide order dated 3.3.16, allowed the opp.party side to cross examine C.W. setting aside the order of exparte hearing. Thereafter the opp.party side had not taken step for cross-examination of C.W.; and finally, on 29.9.16, they had been totally absent and on that day this forum passed order that the case against the opp.parties will proceed on exparte and also heard oral exparte argument of the complainant; and today we deliver our judgment which is as below.
3) The complainant’s case in brief is that she being a consumer of Airtel Company vide Number 9954499299 applied to the said company to issue International SIM Card through Mr.Pintu, an employee of the said company and deposited Rs.10,000/- to the company’s office at chandmari and that was issued to her, but Mr.Pintu told her that a charge of Rs.149/- would be taken as international roaming charge and told her to contact Customer Care Unit of the company to know about the charge. She visited Philippines on 11.12.2011 and an executive of the Customer Care of the opp.party company informed her that International rates for incoming and outgoing calls were Rs.35/- and Rs.15//- per minutes respectively, and advised her to opt for outgoing much as outgoing charge is cheaper than the incoming call. The opp.party company kept her informing through SMS about her unbilled usage until 14.12.2011 was Rs.1569.15; and again they had asked her to deposit Rs.8,000/- and she deposited the same. On 31.12.2011, the opp.party company informed her that her unbilled amount was Rs.44,576.41 and then she called Mr.Pintu to send her a itemwise bill, but Mr.Pintu told her that he is not Customer Care Office, but the customer service office, and refused to help her; and when she wanted to meet the manager, he did not give the manager’s contact number; and then she told Mr.Pintu to deactive her international roaming from her mobile , but he refused to do so. She then sent a junior lawyer of her to the office of the opp.party; and through him, she lodged a complaint (No. 41340177) on behalf of her. She later knew that her bill for 15 days international roaming became Rs.44,576.00 and she received bill to the tune of Rs.33,526.34 (w.e.f. 8.12.12 to 7.1.2012) bill dated 27.1.2012. The number of her mobile was disconnected from last part of Dec,2012 and therefore, the bill upto 7.1.2012 is totally baseless. She later on knew that the rate of incoming and outgoing international roaming are Rs.35/- and Rs.15/- respectively. Then she, through advocate notice, asked Opp.Party No.3 (i) to cancel the mobile No. 9954499299 (ii) to cancel the bill dated 27.1.2012 (iii) to give justified bill in respect of her mobile by calculating the incoming and outgoing at the rate of Rs.35/- and Rs.15/- respectively (iv) to stop harassment to her. The said notice was served upon them , but they refused to dispose of the matter rather kept on harassing and threatening her and demanding the amounts using vulgar and abusive languages; and then she, being compelled, filed FIR at Chandmari Police Station, which was registered as Chandmari P.S.Case No. 335/12 under section 294/506/354/34 IPC against the opp.parties .
She already deposited Rs.18,000/- (Rs.10,000 +8,000) to the opp.parties in connection with international roaming charge against her Mobile (Number 9954499299) . She prays for directing the opp.parties to cancel the connection of her Mobile Number 9954499299, to cancel the bill dated 27.1.2012 of Rs.33,526.34 against her mobile, to prepare justified bill of her international roaming of her mobile calculating the incoming and outgoing charges at the rate of Rs.35/- and Rs.15/- respectively and adjust the already deposited amount of Rs.18,000/- against the said bill, and also to stop harassing her, and also to pay her Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.
4) The gist of the pleading of the opp.parties is that when the complainant approached Mr.Pintu for registering a SIM of International roaming, he asked her to deposit Rs.3,500/- as security, but she deposited Rs.10,000/- and also deposited Rs.149/- as charge for dual IMSI SIM. No call was detected in the complainants mobile after 5.12.2011.Mr. Pintu did not refuse to give itemwise bill, and she would get the said bill through post. They submitted the bill to her for the period from 8.12.2011 to 7.1.2012 but did not charge any amount after suspension of service to that number. Outgoing and incoming calls rates are different in different places/ countries which depends on the local telecast service providers and as such she was asked to verify the local operator charge of that country before selecting international roaming . They did not harass her and her family member in any occasion , nor fails to give service to her. Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act bars this proceeding, but directs to dispose of the dispute through arbitration proceeding , and hence the instant proceeding is liable to be dismissed.
5) We have perused argument forwarded by the complainant. We have also perused the plaint as well as the evidence adduced by the complainant.
i) We have found that it is both sides’ admitted fact that the complainant Mrs. Deepali Das Roy had approached M/S Papu Enterprise (Airtel Retailer, Chandmari, Guwahati) with a prayer for issuing International SIM Card and she also deposited Rs.10,000/- and Rs. 149/- for that purpose and International SIM Card vide her mobile No. 9954499299 was issued to her by them.
ii) The complainant states that she again received a massage from opp.parties that her unbilled amount in respect of her mobile was Rs. 44,576.41/- and then she immediately contacted Mr. Pintu and requested him to send itemwise bill to her , but till today itemized bill was not sent to her. She further states that she received bill dated 27.1.2012 amounted to Rs.33,526.34/- for the period from 8.12.2011 to 7.1.2012. although, her mobile number was disconnected from the last part of 2012, and hence the bill amount is baseless and unreasonable. The opp.party side, in their written statement, admits that originally the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.3,500/- only as security at the time of taking International SIM Card, but she deposited Rs.10,000/- and also deposited another amount of Rs.149/-. This version of opp.parties signifies that certain amount remains unused in favour of the complainant yet against her International SIM Card. The opp.party side further admits that International SIM Card of complainant was disconnected after Dec, 2011 and no call was detected after 5th Dec, 2011. This version signifies that any amount included in the bill dtd. 27.1.2012 for the period w.e.f. 6.12.2011 to 7.1.2012 would be a case of false billing. Sensing about such false billing, the complainant asked the opp.parties to give her itemwise bill to facilitating her to pay the bill, but the itemized bill was not given to her . The opp.party side in their written statement admits that itemwise bill would be sent to the complainant through post. According to the complainant, no such bill was sent to her till now. This act of not sending itemwise bill as sought by the complainant and insisting the complainant to pay the bill as per bill dtd. 27.1.2012 are the acts of deficiency of service towards her. Secondly, repeatedly asking the complainant to pay the bill dtd. 27.1.2012 without sending to her the itemwise bill must be interpreted as an act of harassment. The rates of incoming and outgoing International roaming as per version of the complainant are Rs.35/- and Rs.15/- respectively, as she learn from sources; and therefore, the roaming charge for incoming and outgoing calls at the rate of Rs.180/- per minute as calculated by the opp.parties is not proper, and as such she is entitled to get her bill calculating the incoming and outgoing International roaming as Rs.35/- and Rs.15/- respectively. The opp.party side does not specifically deny this version of the complainant, but they admit that the rates of incoming and outgoing roaming calls are different in different places /countries and are also different in different times. But opp.party side does not give actual rate of roaming charge of the relevant period. Hence, we have found that there is sufficient ground to suspect the accuracy of billing amount as well as the rate of roaming charges. Therefore, we hold that, the complainant is entitled to get itemwise bill of the period till the date of disconnection of her SIM Card, and if opp.party side fails to send the itemwise bill, they are not entitled to get payment as incoming and outgoing charge of international call.
6) The opp.party side, in their written statement, takes a plea that as per provision of Sec.7(b) of Indian Telegraph Act, the present dispute cannot be taken up by this forum for adjudication, but it should have been disposed of by the arbitrator. We have found that the dispute is in between an independent Private mobile company (Bharati Airtel Ltd.), and the complainant, Smti Deepali Roy Das, and in this case Telegraph/Telecommunication Department of Government of India as well as Bharat Sansar Nigam Ltd. are not involved. Therefore, Sec.7(d) of Indian Telegraph Act, is not applicable in the case in hand. Therefore, we are of opinion that this forum has jurisdiction to dispose of the complaint filed by the complainant against the opp.parties.
7) In the factual backdrops of this case, we hold that the complainant is entitled to get direction against the opp.parties to disconnect her mobile No.9954499299, to cancel the bill dtd. 27.1.12, to prepare justified itemwise bill against her mobile calculating incoming and outgoing charges @ Rs.35/- and Rs.15/- respectively, as well as to stop harassing her in any manner and to pay her compensation at least Rs.10,000/-.
8) In view of discussion as above the complaint is allowed on exparte and the opp.parties are directed to cancel the mobile connection of the complainant number 9954499299, to cancel to the bill dtd. 27.1.2012 against her mobile and to prepare justified bill of charge of International roaming against her mobile by calculating the incoming and outgoing charges @ 35 and Rs.15/- respectively, and to adjust the amount of Rs.18,000/- which was already deposited by her, against the said bill . They are also directed to stop harassing the complainant in any manner and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to her as well as Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding, in default of which the amounts shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till full satisfaction of the amount.
Given under our hands and seal of this forum on this day 7th Oct,2016.
Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.
(Mr.U.N.Deka) (Md.S.Hussain)
Member President
