The present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act' 1986 (for short, 'the Act') has been filed by Dr. Ashok Kumar Oberoi complainant praying for the issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite party (for short, called the OP company); to withdraw the illegal Bill in dispute and instead issue the revised Bill besides to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental and physical harassment along with litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that while going to US in June’ 2014 he deposited Rs.2,000/- with the OP company to get the Roaming facility on tour. Upon his return in July’ 2014 he was served upon with a Bill for Rs.31,350/38 p that comprised of mainly the internet charges of Rs.29,790/60p that he had not used at all. Even, the Bill showed the duration of internet usage as NIL but the OP Company insisted upon the payment and refused to withdraw the illegal Bill and hence prompted the present complaint with the desired relief as prayed, hereinabove.

3.       Upon notice, the OP Company appeared through the counsel and filed its written reply version taking the preliminary objections as: the absence of cause of action; complaint filed on mere conjectures and surmises with vexatious and mala fide contents being clearly an afterthought; no deficiency in service on the OP’s part; no case being made out under the Act; and thus the complaint was liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the same pleadings and averments have been repeated and it has been also stated that the PRS facility gets activated by default with the switching ON of the Mobile and the tariff rates of that country become applicable for payment and such the complainant has been liable to pay the impugned Bill and the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.    

4.       Both the parties to the present complaint (through their learned counsels) have produced their affidavits and also the other documents in evidence to support their pleadings, objections and averments etc as advanced during the proceedings of the complaint and have also put forth their respective arguments to prove their  specific assertions. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the essence of the heard/written arguments while adjudicating the present complaint. The complainant has produced the documents exhibited as: Ex.CW1/A being the affidavit of the complainant deposing the pleadings averred in the complaint along with the other documents exhibited as: Ex.C1 being the copy of the legal notice dated 17.07 2014 serve upon the opposite party and the Ex.C2 being the copy of the impugned Bill dated 23.06.2014 for Rs.31,350/38 p drawn upon the complainant. Similarly, the OP company produced its documents exhibited as: Ex.OP6 being the affidavit of its authorized Signatory Manoj Madan and other documents exhibited as: Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP5 in its defense.   

5.       We have critically examined the produced exhibits to interpret the purpose and meaning of each one of these and discuss here the utmost vital Ex.C2 (same as the Ex.OP1) the impugned Bill dated 23.06.2014 for Rs.31,350/38 p; in which the only issue of dispute is the roaming Charges of Rs.26,776/- that are comprised of mainly the internet facility through GPRS (General Packet Radio Charges) being Rs.22,336/- at Qatar (duration 01mm:08ss) and again Rs.4,110/- at Cingul USACG (duration 00mm:00ss), respectively for the usage of GPRS facility, there. The call charges at Qatar for one each incoming and outgoing call are Rs.330/- only with none at Cingul USACG. The complainant admits having made and received one TP Call each at Qatar but denies having used the facility of ‘Internet’ anywhere during his foreign tour. And, his statement stands duly corroborated through the above Bill that clearly shows the duration for ‘internet’ usage as ‘NIL’. The learned counsel for the OP service provider company during the course of arguments states that the ‘internet service’ gets activated ‘by default’ when so ever the mobile with the facility ‘made available’ to it is switched ON in the alien country and the charges are levied as pert the Tie-Up partner’s tariff charges in that country. Further, the requested ‘internet facility’ remains active so long as the blessed ‘Mobile’ remains ON, there. Upon being specifically and categorically queried as to whether the customer consumer was made aware of these situations. The curt reply chirped was that these Multinational companies invest in millions of dollars not to accumulate Business losses through such non-professional hurting advices Ironically, the otherwise a truthful reply (undoubtedly on behalf of the OP company) amounts to deployment of unfair trade practice under the Act. The learned counsel for the OP company (having the distinguished service Tie-Ups with the multinationals) also showed up the complainants’ consent duly held (on the application for availing international roaming) for the charges to be levied as per the usage country’s tariff rates but there was no such consented disclosure as to having received and accepted the terms and conditions of such a ‘preferential’ roaming services that activates the uncalled for facility and that too by default. (Sic.). We hold the OP service provider company guilty of having not only infringed but bruised the consumer rights of the complainant under the Act and thus liable to an adverse reward.   

6.       In the light of the all above, we find and hold the OP company guilty of unfair trade practices coupled with deficiency in services and thus partly allowing the present complaint, ORDER them to withdraw the impugned internet charges from the impugned Bill besides to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him unnecessary harassment and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actually paid.  

7.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

(Naveen Puri)                                         President

ANNOUNCED:                                (G.B.S.Bhullar)               (Jagdeep Kaur)

February 18, 2015.                                     Member.                       Member.

*YP*