IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
Dated this the 10th Day of October 2022
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.239/2019
Mohammad Haneefa : Complainant
Residing at Cresent Nagar-29,
Pallimukku, Kollam,Kerala-691010.
[By Adv.M I Alexander Panicker]
V/s
- Chief Executive Officer : Opposite parties
M/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited,
Phase 4 B Block, 3rd Floor, CA 13,
Twane-Belapur Road,
Gansoli, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra-400701.
- Appellate Authority-Kerala
M/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited,
Pukalakkattu Kariyattu Tower,
Near Yatri Nivas, Mamangalam,
Palarivattom P.O, Kochi-682025.
Kerala State.
[By Adv.Maruthadi.R.Sreeraj,
Adv.Luxy T.A&Adv.Lal.K.Joseph]
FINAL ORDER
E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President
This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant before leaving to gulf country on visiting Visa on 28.04.2019 took Jio Prime Membership ensuring International Roaming facility. The complainant recharged Rs.5751/- to the Jio Number 9747955294. Soon after the recharge at 7:40:25 am IST the complainant got a notification confirming the recharge. The complainant relied and trusted International Roaming facilities of Jio and reached Sharjah Airport at 00:40 am on 30.04.2019 and when tried to contact parties, the mobile showed “No service-shows in the Mobile” which was shocking and the complainant became helpless even in arranging transportation/accommodation in some hotels.
On 01.05.2019 when the complainant contacted Jio through other telephone, it was informed that the roaming is activated. From 30.04.2019 to 02.05.2019 the complainant was in constant touch with Jio service providers so as to get activated his roaming facilities and the reply was the same, “it is activated”. The complainant suspected that there is some fault in his brand new Apple phone set and contacted Apple company and made compliant about the non availability of Jio roaming facility. The Apple technicians on hearing the details of the complaints had reset the mobile set so that all the valuable data and information got deleted, all contacts also got deleted so that the complainant remained idle till 12.05.2019. Without activating the above mobile set the complainant could not receive OTP and was not possible to retrieve backup data from iCloud. The complainant could not be able to contact his sponsor and friends. Anyhow the complainant had made a local contact with his sponsor and again tried to be in touch with the Jio service and from them the information got was that when the SIM card was replaced with e SIM on 17.04.2019 at 7.54 pm the Jio activated only local facility and not activated international facility. Hence the complainant requested to return the amount paid for International roaming facility. But the Jio authorities behaved in a scandalous and contemptuous manner.
On 12.05.2019 their reply to the complainant was that the order for international roaming was not generated on his changed SIM but from 13.05.2019 onwards the stand of jio is that usage was found in customers account while in IR location hence not eligible for the IR pack refund. The complainant made a lot of correspondence and communication with Jio on 06.06.2019 the complainant had mailed to inform the Jio that the total loss and damaged sustained by him for not activating the IR facility and non availability of mobile service and email service to the complainant will amount to Rs.10,00,000/- and the opposite party company is liable to compensate.
The complainant was not in a position to do e banking and he was not getting OTP so lot of problems in making e payments for his commitments and monthly installments of loan for 60 lakhs in SBI, bills, charges etc., KSEB people came to his residence at Kollam to cut off electric supply for nonpayment of bills in time, which he was doing through e payment. The company which sponsored the complainant, named Arabian Integrated Facilities Management, Abu Dhabi had even written a letter asking the complainant to return all the expenses they met in taking Visa and ticket to the complainant and the complainant not able to attend their work due to problems in contacting mutually. The complainant may lose such consultancy in future. The loss and damage caused to the complainant due to irresponsible act of not providing International roaming Facility service at the hour of need and at a foreign country brought all sorts of miseries, mental agony, physical problems, social disgrace and embarrassments among friends, relatives and in public. The goodwill and reputation of the complainant also got affected. The act of the opposite parties would attract criminal offences like breach of trust, cheating and extortion. The complainant as a consumer had paid in advance for the service offered by the opposite parties, but they have done unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate. For litigation the compensation assessed totally by the complainant is Rs.10,00,000/- and that is what is claimed in this complaint. Details of the compensation claimed are appended in the statement of accounts stated in the complaint. The complainant had issued a demand notice on 08.07.2019 through his advocate to the opposite parties for amicable settlement and payment of the claim amount. Even though both the opposite parties have received the notice but they failed to respond or pay the amount and hence this complaint.
The opposite parties entered appearance and filed a joint version raising the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant had approached this Forum with un clean hands by suppressing materials facts. The complaint is barred for non joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of his mobile devise ie, Apple Inc in the party array. However the opposite party would admit that the complainant had visited UAE on a Tourist/Single/Short Visa issued by UAE Government and he had stayed at UAE from 30.04.2019 till 26.05.2019. It is further admitted that the complainant took a Jio Prime Membership on 28.04.2019 and he recharged the same for Rs.5751/-. His international roaming facility was activated from 28.04.2019 onwards, provided he is configuring his roaming service in his mobile with the support of the service provider of the respective place, where he is trying to utilize the roaming facility. The usage and recharge statement of the complainant from 28.04.2019 to 08.05.2019 shows that the complainant had accessed data usage of 0.729 GB during that period and the date wise details of the statement reveals that he was continuously availing the service of these opposite parties from 30.04.2019 till 02.05.2019 at UAE. So the contentions of the contrary are incorrect. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant was not aware of how the international roaming activation are done when they move outside the Country/Service area. The complainant ought to have checked the opposite parties website as user guidelines for roaming services wherein detailed information and instructions for the benefit of their prospective customers who go for international roaming. But the complainant has not checked the activation process steps from the website. Therefore the complainant had been negligent for not checking for any of the stepts which ought to be taken by complainant while he reached abroad which ultimately caused not connecting to the network. But the complainant has been conveniently saddling the responsibility on the shoulder of the opposite party and claiming undue advantage from the opposite parties. The complainant had contacted the opposite parties and he was duly informed that his international roaming was activated. Since the complainant had failed to implead the maker of Apple mobile handset in the party array the complainant had prevented the real facts from being revealed before this Forum. Since the Apple service personal had cleared the storage data of the complainant he was unable to contact his other friends and relative for which the opposite parties are not responsible.
As the complainant had actually utilized the data through the service of the opposite parties, the demand of the complainant for the refund of the amount paid could not be accepted. The details of the statement issued on 18.07.2019 would indicate that the complainant used internet data. Hence the demand of the complainant for refund of the amount that he paid for the service could not be accepted. The complainant has not sustained any damages as alleged nor the complainant is entitled to recover any amount of money from the opposite parties after enjoying the service provided by them.
The receipt of notice issued at the instance of the complainant is also accepted by the opposite parties and the non sending of reply notice is also accepted. But according to the opposite parties since the matter is repetitive in nature as the same is answered during various stages of direction interaction of the complainant with the opposite party. Hence the non replying of notice would not amount to admission of any guilt. The complainant has not sustained any loss of money nor he suffered any mental agony. Therefore he is not entitled to get any amount from the opposite party as compensation. The complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. No cause of action has been arisen against the opposite parties. The opposite parties further pray to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs.
In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation, if so what would be the quantum of compensation to be awarded?
- Relief and costs.
No oral evidence has been adduced either by the complainant or by the opposite parties. Both parties are relying on documentary evidence. The complainant got marked Ext.P1 to P11, P12 to P14 documents, out of which P12, P13 and P14 are marked subject to proof. The opposite party got marked Ext.D1 series &D2 series documents. Both sides have filed notes of argument.
Heard both sides.
Point No.1&2
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 2 points are considered together. The following are the admitted facts in this case. The complainant purchased a Jio Prime Membership on 28.04.2019 and he recharged for Rs.5751/- for obtaining International Roaming Facilities . According to the complainant as he got an offer from M/s Arabian Integrated Facilities Management Company, Abu Dhabi to attend his work from 30.04.2019, they have arranged Visa and ticket so as to start work on 30.04.2019. Hence before leaving his native place on 28.04.2019 the complainant getting attracted by the offer of Jio took Jio Prime Membership and wished to ensure International Roaming Facility from Jio. So the complainant recharged Rs.5751/- to his Jio No.9747955294. The mobile set of the complainant was Apple model. Immediately after recharging at 07:40:25 the complainant got intimation by informing recharge. As per Ext.P3 intimation it is also informed that the recharge was successful and the complainant is entitled for the following benefits, voice(outgoing local calles+outgoing calls to India) 1500 minutes, voice incoming free, 1500 SMS, unlimited data(5GB High Speed data and thereafter unlimited at 64 Kbps and validity for 30 days. The transaction ID was BR0002M6W00E.
According to the complainant by relying on IR facilities of Jio the complainant reached Sharjah Airport at 00:40 am on 30.04.2019 and when he verified his mobile phone to contact parties the mobile showed “No service-shows in the Mobile” which was shocking and the complainant became helpless even in arranging transportation/accommodation in some hotels. Therefore the very next day he contacted Jio through other phone. Thereafter from 30.04.2019 to 02.05.2019 the complainant was in constant touch with Jio service providers so as to get activated his roaming facility. But the reply was very same “it is activated”. As the International Roaming was not activated the complainant became helpless and he could not contact his sponsor and friends and he was not in a position to do e-banking and he faced lot of other problems and he sustained heavy loss. Hence the complainant claims compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that Ext.P3 to P5 documents would establish the case of the complaint.
It is true that as per Ext.P3 document would indicate that the complainant has successfully recharged for Rs.5751/- in his Jio No.9747955294 and as per Ext.P4 communication the complainant has intimated he is unable to use international roaming facilities in UAE. Ext.P5 reply to refund request would indicate as the complainant could not use roaming facilities he had requested to refund the recharge amount. But in the 2nd paragraph of Ext.P5 it is seen stated by the opposite party that our team has found that the order for international roaming was not generated in your changed SIM therefore you are not able to use the services. It is true that the complainant has also caused to send Ext.P9 lawyer notice stating his above grievances and seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the complainant the non sending of reply to Ext.P9 lawyer notice itself would amount to the admission of deficiency in service and liability to pay compensation. In the light of Ext.P7 and P8 and Ext.D1 series and D2 series documents we find no merit in the above argument of the learned counsel for the complainant. In Ext.P7 and P8 documents it is specifically stated that on verification of the team deputed by the opposite party it was found that there was international roaming usage in the Jio number of the complainant. Hence refund cannot be processed. According to the opposite parties they have activated the roaming facility but the complainant was not aware how the international roaming activation are done when they move outside the country/service area. The complainant ought to have checked the opposite parties website as user guidelines for roaming services. It is clear from the 2nd page of Ext.D1 series document that the opposite party in their website have specifically given detailed information and instructions for the benefit of their prospective customers who got for international roaming. According to the opposite parties it is clear from available materials that the complainant had not checked for the activation process steps from the website and not taken steps before using international roaming facility. Therefore the complainant was negligent for not checking for any steps which ought to have been taken and the same is ultimately caused in not getting the roaming service while the complainant was abroad. In the circumstances mere non sending of any reply to Ext.P9 notice will not make the opposite parties liable for the fault of the complainant himself.
It is further contented in the written version filed by the opposite parties that the complainant had not suffered any loss of money and had not suffered any mental agony as a result of the actions of the opposite parties and hence the complainant is not entitled to recover any amount from the opposite parties as compensation. In the light of the above contentions it is the duty of the complainant to establish that due to the misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance on the part of the opposite parties the complainant sustained any monitory loss or mental agony. It is true that he has not received roaming facility immediately when he landed at the UAE Airport. It is clear from the available materials that the International roaming facility of the complainant was activated by the opposite party on 28.04.2019 onwards provided he configuring in his roaming service in his mobile phone with the support of the service provider of the respective place where he is trying to utilize the roaming facility. It is also clear from Ext.D2 series usage and recharge statement of the complainant from 28.04.2019 to 08.05.2019 that the complainant had accessed to data usage of 0.729 GB during that period. Ext.D2 series date wise details of statement would reveal that the complainant was continuously availing the service of the opposite party from 30.04.2019 till 02.05.2019 at UAE. It is true that he could not access the roaming facility for 2 days from 28.04.2019 till 30.04.2019 which is not due to any fault of the opposite parties but due to the failure of the complainant in configuring his roaming service with the support of the service providers. Even according to the complainant he reached Sharjah Airport only at 00.40 hours on 30.04.2019.
It is also clear from D1 series information and instruction website for RIL regarding guidance for roaming service that the responsibility of the proposed user of the roaming to understand the same and set his mobile phone ready to perform the roaming. Even according to the complainant he reached Sharjah Airport at 00.40 am on 30.04.2019. Ext.D2 usage and recharge statement of the complainant would indicate that he had availed data usage of 0.729 GB during the period from 30.04.2019 till 02.05.2019. In the circumstances we find little force in contenting that the opposite party failed to make available the roaming facility for the complainant from28.04.2019 onwards. It is clear from the available materials that the entire episode happened because, the complainant was not aware how the international roaming facility are done when he moves outside the country/service area. The complainant ought to have checked the opposite party’s website user guidelines for roaming services. It is also clear from the available materials that the opposite party in their website have specifically given detailed information and instruction for the benefit of the prospective customers who got for international roaming. The opposite party has specifically narrated 3 steps as post pack purchase(Prepaid&postpaid)/IR Activation(Postpaid) in foreign countries and it is specifically stated that if the user of the roaming facility are unable to register to network that he has to follow 3 specific steps. But the complainant has no case that he understood the above 3 steps and done the same and even then he has not received the roaming facility.
In view of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the complainant it is clear that the complainant has not checked the activation process steps from the website and as per instructions stated in the website the complainant has not acted up on. In the circumstances it is clear that the complainant was negligent in not checking the procedure to be followed by him while he reached abroad which ultimately caused not connecting the network. In the circumstances the complainant is not expected to saddle the responsibility of not availing the roaming facility on the shoulders of the opposite parties as argued by the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
It is contented on behalf of the opposite party that the complainant after utilizing the internet data has been raised a demand for the refund of the amount paid and the same cannot be accepted at all. In view of Ext.B2 account usage and recharge statement that the complainant has used 0.729 GB between 30.04.2019 till 02.05.2019. In the circumstances we find no merit in the case of refund advanced by the complainant.
On evaluating the entire materials available on record we come to the conclusion that the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore we find no merit in the complaint and the same is only to be dismissed. Points answered accordingly.
Point No.3
In the result complaint stands dismissed.
No costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 10th day of October 2022.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext P1: E-mail communication dated 17.04.2019 at 1:17:13 PM IST to the complainant from opposite party.
Ext P2: E-mail communication dated 17.04.2019 at 1:24:51 PM IST to the complainant from opposite party.
Ext.P3: E-mail communication dated 28.04.2019 at 07:40:25 AM IST to the complainant from opposite party.
Ext.P4: E-mail communication dated 10.05.2019 at 12:25:26 AM IST to the complainant from opposite party.
Ext.P5 : E-mail communication dated 12.05.2019 at 07:54 pm IST to the complainant from opposite party.
Ext.P6 : E-mail communication dated 27.05.2019 at 12:37:21 PM IST to the complainant from opposite party.
Ext.P7 : E-mail communication dated 16.05.2019 at 06:05:08 PM IST to the complainant from opposite party.
Ext.P8 : E-mail communication dated 07.06.2019 at 02:58 AM IST to the complainant from opposite party.
Ext.P9 : Demand notice dated 08.07.2019 to the opposite parties.
Ext.P10 : Postal receipts.
Ext.P11 : Acknowledgment card.
Ext.P12(S/O) : Letter issued from Arabian integrated facilities management dated 01.06.2019.
Ext.P13(S/O) :Copy of ticket to and from of Indigo Airways from Tvm to Sharjah.
Ext.P14(S/O) :Copy of Visa/Permit from 22.04.2019 to 20.06.2019.
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for the opposite party:-
Ext.D1 series : Information and instruction in the website of Ril regarding guidelines for roaming services with IT certificate.
Ext.D2 : Account usage and recharge statement from 28.04.2019 to 08.05.2019.
