Complaint filed on: 04.07.2012

                                                      Disposed on: 20.02.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.1351/2012

DATED THIS THE 20^th FEBRUARY OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant: -                     

Vinod Kumar. S

s/o Sivagnanam M

aged about 34 years

Engineer by profession

R/at no.964,  2^nd F cross,

4 C main, 3^rd block, 3^rd stage, Basaveshwaranagar. Opp.Florence high school

Bengaluru-560079

By Inperson

V/s

Opposite party:-       

       Business Head

       M/s.Bharti Airtel ltd

       Circle office, No.55,

Divyasree Towers, Bannerghatta Road,

Bengaluru-560029

By Adv.Sri.B.J.Mahesh

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the deficiency in service in committing errors in the billing of his Airtel mobile connection against the credit limit of Rs.3,200/- and thereby has claimed the relief of disregarding such bills and for direction against the Opposite party to stop harassment by third party collection agents and also for compensation amount of Rs.10,000/-.

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he being the holder of Airtel mobile connection from 2006 onwards with no.9980011938 got GPRS activated from 27.01.12. He used less than 250mb per month till May 2012. He had the credit limit of Rs.3,200/- only. He used to receive monthly bills for Rs.600/- to Rs.700/- only. On 07.05.12 he received SMS message about the monthly bill of Rs.7,600/- till 05.05.12 which became excessive when compared to earlier bills. Immediately he switched off the internet connection and informed to the call centre but he was asked to wait for the bill. He removed the SIM from the mobile. On 08.05.12 he received the SMS message for Rs.19,200/- till 06.05.12, it was shock to him. Then also he was asked to wait for the bill. The connection was cancelled on 14.05.12. He referred to nodal office Airtel, but did not get response. On 13.05.12, the collection agents of Opposite party started demanding and harassing him and his parents. His credit limit was only Rs.3,200/- but the bill dtd.22.05.12 was prepared for Rs.22,697/- which exceeds his limit. 2GB of data usage in 4 days could not have been down loaded in his hand set. Usage of 5mb for every 3 minutes for 3 days mentioned in the bill is not normal usage. Hence this complaint is filed, seeking the order for enquiry by the technical expert or by cyber-crime police unit also.

          3. The Opposite party in his version has admitted that the Complainant being the holder of the mobile SIM no.9980011938 got activation of GPRS from January 2012 at the credit limit of Rs.3,200/-. The remaining allegations were denied as false, contending that the Complaint is not maintainable under 7(b) of IT Act. He used the internet facility to the maximum extent from 20.04.12 to 19.05.12 particularly in between 26.04.12 to 07.05.12 to the extent of Rs.22,697.90 and after discount the said amount was reduced in the bill as Rs.16,506/-. He was informed about the unbilled usage periodically but he continued to use extensively. The credit enables him/subscriber to use to the extent of credit limit without making payments prior to the bill being generated for that particular period. The credit limit fixed would be only with respect to call charges and does not includes usage of value added services. The bills have been generated through computer. There is no manual interference therein. From 05.05.12 the Complainant has made and received calls also. In the event of subscriber the logging to any social network even after logout of such networks due to some viruses named “molve”, the mobile would be connected to the server and it cannot be attributable to the Opposite party. 2GB data usage in 4 days could not have been down loaded is denied. There is no willful negligence, default and deficiency by the Opposite party. The Complainant is not entitled to any relief. Complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

          4. The Complainant and the official of the Opposite party filed their affidavit evidences relying on Ex-A1 to A8 documents and Ex-B1/May 2012 bill respectively. Written arguments were also filed and they have relied on number of citations and authorities. Arguments were heard.

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged deficiency in service in preparing the monthly bills for his mobile connection and GRPS system in May 2012 ?
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative.

2) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the Complainant engineer Vinod Kumar.S was a subscriber of Opposite party/Bharathi Airtel ltd. about his mobile-sim no.9980011938 from 2006. He got the GRPS activated from 27.01.12.

8. He received the said phone bills from January 2012 till April 2012 for the average amount of Rs.572/- to 707/- only. The said bills are Ex-A8 for January 12 Rs.572.50, Ex-A4 for February 12 Rs.607.09, Ex-A3 for March Rs.618.79, Ex-A2 for April Rs.706.74.

          9. It is also undisputed that he received the bill Ex-A1/B1 for the period 20.04.12 to 19.05.12 for Rs.16,506.94. The said sudden escalated bill amount made him to switch off his sim, to get the cancellation of connection and to communicate with the Opposite party as per Ex-A5 to A7 e-mail letters.

10. He contends that during the same period similar complaints were received from various internet users shown in Ex-A7 emails of 3 persons.  On 09.05.12 he had sent the email, requesting the Opposite party to give the police complaint to cyber division for having received such a problem for the first time in 6 years, dramatically asking the meaning of dynamic credit limit of Rs.3,200/- given to him. He had contended that he cannot make payment more than Rs.3,200/- limit and the Opposite party had to inform him in advance after exceeding all the restricted limits to continue the service further.

11. The Opposite party reiterated its version informing him about registration of his request for cancellation of mobile connection, further informing that they deployed the state of the art billing system which ensures his bills become always error free and with the advice always of charge mentioned along with any content available for download from any website and that as per the telecom (TRAI) rules they are unable to process his request to provide the browsed website details. The Opposite party has also contended that if internet is not logged out properly then the application browsed would get automatically refresh which makes them to levy charges for each and every time the application gets refresh.

12. The official of the Opposite party in his affidavit evidence at para 6 has deposed

I state that, the credit limit provided to the Complainant was Rs.3,200/-. The credit limit enable a subscriber to use the facilities to the extent of such credit limit without making any payments, prior to the bill being generated for that particular period. Once the usage of a subscriber surpasses the credit limit, the service provider would be at liberty to demand the immediate payment of the usage charges by the subscriber even before the generation of the bill. Nevertheless credit limit fixed would be only with respect to call charges and does not include usage of value added service (VAS).

13. The Opposite party relying on 1996 I CPR 19 National Commission contended that the redressal forum cannot on the basis of the computerized bill system cannot doubt about the billing particulars in similar cases including in the case of STD facility being misused in large scale by third parties without their being circumstantial evidence to probablise such collusion evidence and in such circumstances absence of direct and  circumstantial evidence should be considered.

14. The referred citation has considered even the involving of P&T officials with the culprits in misusing STD facilities of the individual subscribers. If the same principle is adopted in the instant and similar cases also the possibility of absence of logging out from any social network/website inviting to the viruses named ‘Molve’ cannot be ruled out and thereby there was possibility of escalating the usage of the internet within the short period which compelled the Opposite party to insist for immediate payments before giving intimation of warning etc., The Complainant has also stated that the sudden escalation was found within the period of 2 or 3 days interval. Such being the case the correspondence between the Complainant and the Opposite party as per Ex-A5 & A6 do not show any deficiency on the part of the Opposite party or interference of human efforts in the computerized billing system. Mentioning of the similar complaints by other 3 persons as per Ex-A7 itself is not sufficient to show that the remedy for all of them lies in seeking waving of computerized bill amounts. In the result the Complainant has failed to establish the alleged deficiency against the Opposite party and accordingly the Consumer Dispute is answered in the negative.   

          15. Consumer Dispute No.2: As observed in various reported decisions and the notification of the Government of India dtd.07.03.14 of Ministry of consumer affairs, food and public distribution department. Consumer forum gets authority to adjudicate the dispute between subscribers and telecom server providers and hence the contention of the Opposite party that it has no jurisdiction have no force.   In view of findings of the Consumer Dispute No.1 the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The Complaint of the Complainant is here by dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 20^th day of February 2017).

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party