Date of Filing: 24/09/2011

        Date of Order:23/11/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  23^rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1793 OF 2011

Vijaya Krishnan,

Door No.1443, 20^th Main,

12^th Cross, HSR Layout,

Bangalore.

(Rep. by In-person)                                                                      ….  Complainant.

V/s

The Manager,

Bharti Airtel Limited,

Opp. Jayadeva Hospital,

No.55, Divyasree Towers,

Bannerghatta Road,

Bangalore-560 029.

(Rep. by Sri.B.J.Mahesh, Advocate)                                      …. Opposite Party.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to settle the bills, are necessary:-

The complainant is using the Airtel Mobile Service bearing No.9902988778 from the past 4 years and never had any bills due.  One day the Airtel Customer Service Executive telephoned the complainant and made an offer for 3G services where the monthly package would be Rs.450/- per month with 600 MB free download and browsing charges absolutely free.  When questioned in detail he told that there will be no extra charges for browsing and only the downloads after the limit, will be charged and also they said that once the complainant reach download limit, it will be informed either through a phone call or through message i.e., when the complainant reach credit limit of 3G service (600MB) and the excess shall be charged.  The complainant got the service activated and within 20 days the service was deactivated.  When questioned they told that the complainant had crossed the limit.  The complainant has not crossed the credit limit he just downloaded between 450-500 MB.  The complainant asked them that he was given an offer stating the above plan, but the opposite party stated that it was just the overall bill without the appropriate discounts and plan, once the bill is generated the discounts will be made and the complainant shall get the exact amount reflecting in the bill.  On 20.04.2011 at 3:17 PM the complainant received a message from the opposite party that usage of Rs.3,647/- has crossed the credit limit of Rs.3,000/- (charges till 19-April) and demanded to pay Rs.2,700/- as interim amount.  When complainant asked the opposite party they total that is just the overall monthly bill without the discounts and the adjustments or discounts shall made when the bill is generated.  Later when generated the complainant got the message stating the bill reflected 13,921/- upon questioning they said it is for the usage of 13,921.  The Airtel Service personnel telephoned the complainant stating that they have decided to give discount of Rs.5,000/- wherein he supposed to pay Rs.9000/- for the excess usage.  When complainant asked to give him exact bill with proper details the opposite party replied to lodge a complaint and rectify it.  The complainant got a message stating that his credit balance limit has been increased from 3000 to 5000.  Later the complainant started getting calls from the opposite party demanding Rs.13,921/- due towards the bill and threatened for disconnection.  Hence the complaint.

2.       In brief the version of opposite party are:-

          The complainant has questioned the bill issued on May 2011 for the period 20.04.2011 to 19.05.2011 for a sum of Rs.13,930/-.  The present dispute is not maintainable in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 dated: 01.09.2009 between General Manager, Telecom v. M.Krishnan & Another – reported in 2009 AIR SCW-5631.  Since the dispute is between the subscriber and telecom service provider, the remedy available for the complainant is Under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides for adjudication of dispute under the provisions of Arbitration Act.  Further relying on the said judgment various state Commissions have also disposed off the complaints.  The complainant is a subscriber of the opposite party with respect to mobile connection bearing No.9902988778.  At the option of the complainant he was activated with GPRS facility Under 3G pack with rental of Rs.450/- per month with the credit limit of Rs.3,000/-.  The complainant was provided with 600 MB free usage.  The complainant started using the GPRs facility extensively.  Since as on 06.05.2011 itself the complainant has exhausted his free usage quota and above which he has used up to 89 MB as such on 07.05.2011.  Hence an education was sent by way of SMS on 7^th May’11 saying that, “Your GPRS data usage as on 06.05.2011 is 89 MB.  This exceeds your free MB quota.  Use date calculator on www.airtel.in to know your usage.  To upgrade pact, SMS 3G to 121”.  Even after the Alert SMS the complainant continued to use the service exorbitantly as such once again an SMS was sent on 9^th May’11 Saying that “your GPRS data usage as on 08-05 is Rs.2,173/- kindly make an interim payment of Rs.2,173/- to continue enjoying GPRs services.  To upgrade your 3G pack, SMS 3G to 121”.  In spite of repeated alerts the complainant did not bother to restrict the usage of GPRs facility.  As on 12.05.2011 the usage was to an extent of Rs.8,267/- which is much above the free usage as well as the credit limit.  A per the procedure a Telecall & Prebar SMS sent on 12^th may saying that “your GPRS data usage as on 11-05 is Rs.8,267/-.  This exceeds your free data usage quota.  Kindly pay Rs.8,267/- to continue enjoying 3G service.  To upgrade pack, SMS 3G to 121”.  Since the complainant did not make the interim payment towards the usage the opposite party was compelled to bar the GPRS under 3G pack with effect from 13.05.2011.  As the complainant did not pay the bill of May-2011 the outgoing calls were barred on 21.07.2011 and as on date the complainant is due a sum of Rs.15,628/- to the opposite party.  The contention made in the complaint that there will be no extra charges for browsing is not correct.  It is true that within 1 month from the date of activation the services were barred because of the reasons mentioned above.  Since the complainant crossed the limit of Rs.3,000/- as per the procedure adopted by all telecom service providers unless the interim payment is made the services can be suspended.  The communication between the complainant and opposite party made in the complaint may be true.  The averment made in the complaint that opposite party has decided to give discount of Rs.5,000/- and the opposite party have not given the exact bill with proper details is not correct. 

3.       To substantiate their respective cases the complainant has stated that his complaint and documents may be read as his evidence.  The opposite party has filed his affidavit.  Arguments were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B):        As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant has obtained certain mobile and internet facility from the opposite party and regarding billing of a particular month he has raised dispute before this Forum.  In any event regarding billing in a case between M/s. Reliance Communication Limited and Another –V/s- Pranavrajanala in Appeal No.4578 of 2010 our Hon’ble State Commission on 29.03.2011 has held that billing cannot be decided by the District Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act and that has to decided in its jurisdiction.  In view of the said mandate this complaint has to be dismissed.  This in all force applies to the facts and circumstances of this case.  That means the billing cannot be questioned before the District Forum of a private service provider.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.        The complaint is Dismissed.  No order as to costs.

2.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

3.       Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 23^rd Day of November 2011)

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT