FA  1112/2009 against CC 233/2008  on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, Krishna District at Vijayawada.

Between :

1.            M/s.IDEA Cellular Ltd,

( previously Tata Communications Ltd )

Circular office. 5-9-62

K.LK Lathif Khan )  Estate, Fetah Maidan Road,

Hyderabad rep. by its Manager Legal,

Arun Madhav, S/o B. V. R. Murthy

Aged about 34 years,

2.            M/s.  Idea Cellular ltd

Branch office

39-7-1, Krishna Towers, M. G. Road

Labbipet, Vijayawada – 10                   … Appellants /opp. Parties

And

Dr. S. Masthan Rao, S/o Brahmanandam

D. No. 29-14-51, Near Pushpa Hotel,

Suryaraopet, Vijayawada                                      

Counsel for the Appellants                        :           M/s. Srinivasa Rao Pachwa

Counsel for the Respondent         :           M/s.  V. Gourisankara Rao

Coram           ;          

                              Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao…      Hon’ble Member

And

                                    Sri T. Ashok Kumar                ..         Hon’ble Member

Wednesday, the Twenty   Day of February

Two Thousand Twelve

          Oral Order       :   per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Hon’ble Member )

****

1.   This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the  order dated 16.07.2009  in CC 233/2008  on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, Krishna at Vijayawada . For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as

2. The brief facts of the complaint  are as under :

The complainant paid Rs.1000/- in the year 1998  to the opposite parties towards deposit for providing Cell phone facility  and he was allotted a number  98481-14996 which is a post paid account having facility of  maximum credit limit of Rs.1,400/-and that his consumption charges never exceeded  Rs.3,000/- per month.   In the month of May, 2008 the complainant approached OP. 2 Branch office at Vijayawada and informed that he intends to visit Bangkok, Malaysia and Singapore and thus  requested them to provide International roaming facility to his cell phone  and accordingly OP. 2 provided international roaming facility by collecting Rs.2,000/- on 17.05.2008. The complainant went to Bangkok on 21.5.2008 and  lost his mobile on 24.05.2008 at about 7.15 PM ( local time of Bangkok). Immediately  he telephoned to the Vijayawada number of the OP. 2 i.e. 0866-6663344 but it was not received. Later the complainant returned to Vijayawada and paid Rs.700/- on 2.8.2008 as per the bill. Thereafter, the complainant received another bill for Rs.27  in the month of June itself to pay the same on or before 04.07.2008 and then he approached OP 2 many times to clarify as to how the company allowed such extraordinary exceeding calls when the account credit limit is only Rs.1,400/-  The OPs got issued legal notice on 18.8.2008 demanding to pay Rs.24.972/- with untenable allegations for which the complainant replied suitably . There was no   from the OPs. In the said context and the acts of the Ops amount to deficiency in service and thus prayed to award       Rs. 2,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony for  deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The opposite parties  filed their counter while admitting the allotment of post paid Account No. 98581-14996 to the complainant  with a  credit  limit of Rs.1,400/-  and also about  providing of International roaming facility for such number  by receiving Rs.2,000/- but denied the loss of mobile on 24.5.2008 and intimation of  the same to the opposite party branch Phone No. 0866-6663344 and contended that they have not put a check to the mobile number of the complainant as he was in abroad  and that he is a respectful person yet taking advantage of the same the complainant is throwing mud on the opposite party and  blaming the OPs.  It is further contended that all the calls from the mobile of the   were made to the numbers belongs to the State of Andhra Pradesh  only,   which reveals that  he used the services of the OPs  and it is his responsibility to pay the bill amount as claimed.  They also admitted exchange of notices. The OPs also pleaded that  on the profile of the customer and his repayment capacity, relaxation would  be given on case to case  basis and that  the representatives  of the OPs clearly explained the purpose of fixation of credit limit and also reasons for providing continues service to International  Roaming subscribers and that the complaint is a vexatious one and filed to have wrongful gain  and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4.         Both   field her evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings  and  Ex. A-1 to A8   were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B-1  is   marked for the OP.

5.         Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum directed the complainant to pay bill amount to International Roaming up to 7 PM local time of Bangkok on 24.05.2008 from 19.05.2008 only and that the complainant is not liable to pay the rest and  the OPs  have no right to demand the billing amount from 7.15 Pm of Bangkok time ie from 24.05.2008 till  the complainant returned to India.   OPs were directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards damages and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.

6.         Feeling aggrieved with the said order the opposite parties    filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the District Forum failed to see that 24.5.2008 is Saturday  and it is holiday for the office of the appellant OPs  as such the alleged call, if any, made by the complainant  after office hours ( ie. 7.30 PM of Bangkok time = 6.00 PM of Indian time) could not be received by the appellants and the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he has called on 24.5.2008 and the complainant leaving the customer care number stating that he has made phone call to 0866 6663344/  When the customer is on international roaming in view of he possible inconvenience at new country they will not mind the credit limit and that after the alleged loss of phone on 24.5.2008 all calls were made to the State of Andhra Pradesh only  and that the complaint filed this complaint to evade the bill amount and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.

7.            Heard both side counsel with reference   their respective contentions in detail.

8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is

9.         There is no dispute that the OPs allotted Mobile No. 98481 14996 facility  to the complainant in the year 1998 with a credit limit facility of Rs.1400/-  and that he has been using the same and that in the month of May, 2008 he approached OP 2 at Labbipet, M. G. Road, Vijayawada and informed that he intends  to visit Bangkok, Malaysia and Singapore and that requested the OPs to provide International roaming facility to his Mobile number aforesaid and that  OP 2 collected Rs.2000/- from him  on 17.5.2008 for providing such an international Roaming facility to the said cell phone number. The case of the complainant is that he went to Bangkok on 21.5.2008 and lost his mobile on 24.5.2008 at about 7.15 PM local time of Bangkok and that immediately he telephoned to Vijayawada land phone of OP. 2 that is 0886- 6663344 but it was not received and that later on the complainant returned to Vijayawada, enquired and paid Rs.700/- on 2.6.2008 on receiving the bill and that subsequently he received another bill for Rs.27,971.64 in the month of June itself and that OP 1 asked him to pay the said amount on or before 4.7.2008 and  that when he lost the cell phone there was no possibility of his making calls to the tune of         Rs.27, 971.64 ps  and in spite of his best efforts there was no response from the Ops and that when credit facility was to a limit of Rs.1400/- the OPs should have disconnected the out going facility  but it did not do so and that the acts of the Ops amount to deficiency in service and thus he claimed to declare the said bill for rs.27,971.64 pas null and void and to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for mental agony etc.

10.       There is no dependable evidence from the complainant’s side to prove that on 24Bangkok he made a telephone to Vijayawada land line No. of OP. 2 ie. 0866-6663344 informing that his cell phone was lost and therefore it is not desirable   believe his version aforesaid.  Even otherwise, if such a phone call was made beyond office hours naturally none would answer the calls thus it is a futile attempt on the part of the complainant. Similarly there is no evidence or contention at least from the complainant that he made such a complaint to customer care No. 9848012345.  So also, to police or other Agency at   to believe his version  that he lost cell phone. Therefore it is  believed as true.  In such circumstances, it is believed that OPs had no information about the alleged loss of the said Mobile phone by the complainant. very specifically Ops contended that all the phones subsequent to the said date were made to State of Andhra Pradesh and the said aspect has not been disputed by the complainant and he did not say anywhere that he has no connection of whatsoever with the said phone numbers detailed in Ex.  and in such circumstances there is acceptable force in the contention of the OPs that the complainant did not loose the said cell phone. It is true that the credit limit was Rs.1400/-.  In view of possible inconvenience to him the opposite parties were justified in not stopping out going calls facility to the said cell number and therefore the said objection of the complainant is not useful for him in this case.   It is much more so when they have no information about the alleged loss of cell phone.  Therefore in the circumstances of the case, the complainant is answerable to pay the charges mentioned in Ex. B1 for use of the Mobile in Abroad.  the order under appeal is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside

11.       In the result, the appeal is allowed setting the aside the order of the District Forum and consequently the complaint filed by the complainant stands dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

                                                                                    MEMBER

                                                                                    MEMBER

                                                                                      :      22.02.2012.