O R D E R

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member - II):

                 The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                 2. The complainant’s case is that he had a mobile phone with prepaid connection of Idea Cellular Ltd.  As per the request of the 1^st opposite party and as the offers found reasonable, complainant transferred the prepaid mobile connection to post paid connection.  The complainant accepted these offers and signed the plan form.  The complainant paid Rs.225/- and prepaid connection migrated to post paid connection and Rs.50/- paid for reduction in call rates.  The opposite party told that for the migration from prepaid to post paid connection it will take only 4 hours but the connection was activated only after 26 hours instead of 4 hours.  The complainant did not get the ISD facility.  So the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party.  They told that the ISD facility will be provided only on payment of Rs.1000/- as security.  While the complainant was using the post paid connection, on 10-05-2014 he got message about the call charge of Rs.962/-.  As per the mobile message he paid the amount to the opposite party, but they did not give any detailed bill and receipt to the complainant.  In the prepaid connection his total expense was only Rs.299/- but in post paid connection call rates are too high.  So the complainant transferred post paid connection to prepaid connection.  On 17-06-2014, the complainant sent a letter to the 1^st opposite party for getting detailed bill and receipt, but they have not done anything positively for redressing the grievance of the complainant.  The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for the realization of a total amount of Rs.6000/- under various heads and cost of this proceedings jointly and severally from the opposite party.

                 3. In this case, the opposite parties filed their version with the following main contention:  They admitted that the complainant had transferred his prepaid connection to post paid connection and vice versa.  According to the opposite party, intimation of the information about call duration and rate after each call is not correct.  The complainant signed the plan form and paid Rs.225/- for registration fees but the complainant did not contacted the opposite party to reduce the call charge after the activation of post paid connection.  The opposite party provided 100 free SMS and 400 minutes free talk time.  The complainant knows that the monthly bill is to be paid on or before 10^th of every month otherwise the connection will be disconnected.  Normally the connection will be activated within 4 hours but the connection was activated within 26 hours due to technical lags in the system of Idea Cellular Ltd.  The complainant has to pay only the bill amount.  As per opposite party, the ISD facility will be activated after paying Rs.1000/- as security.  The opposite party remitted Rs.1000/- for the activation of the ISD facility because of the threatening from the complainant.  The post paid connection is transferred to prepaid connection.  The migration period of 2 days is not correct, it will take at least 5 days.  The call rates are not calculated in MB/KB.   The amounts were described in rupees in every bill generated to the subscriber.  The allegation that the opposite parties have taken no steps to redress the grievances of the complainant is not correct.  Apart from the above contentions, opposite party also raised certain objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute relating to the telephone billing.  In the said transaction, there is no cheating, no malpractices or negligence on the side of the opposite parties.   Complainant transferred his prepaid connection to post paid connection voluntarily after knowing the terms and conditions of the plan.  The complainant’s demand for return of the security amount of Rs.1000/- is not correct, but the complainant is liable to return Rs.1000/- remitted by the opposite party on behalf of the complainant.  With the above contentions, opposite party prays for dismissing the complaint against them with cost as they have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

                 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                 5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 and B1.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

      6. The point:-   The complainant’s case is that he had transferred his prepaid connection to post paid.  The opposite party gave several offers to reduce the call rates to 10ps/minute, 100 free SMS, 400 minutes free talk time, etc. but the complainant did not get any facilities.  In the prepaid connection, his total expense was only Rs.299/- including ISD facility for one month.  But in the post paid connections the total call charge was Rs.962/- for one month.  The complainant sent letter for getting the detailed bill and receipt but they have not taken any positive action for redressing the complainant’s grievances.  The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.

                 7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and 2 documents were produced which are marked as Ext.A1and A2.  Ext A1 is the bill for Rs.962/- issued by the opposite party on 16/04/2014.  Ext.A2 is the bill for Rs.879.39/- issued by the opposite party.

                 8. The contention raised by the opposite party in their version regarding the question of maintainability of this complaint on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction, cause of action, etc are not considered in the absence of any evidence from the side of the opposite party to substantiate their said contentions.  Apart from the above contentions, opposite parties main contention is that the complainant knows very well that the monthly bill is to be paid on or before 10^th of every month.  The complainant signed the terms and conditions of the plan form voluntarily.  Opposite party remitted Rs.1000/- as security for the activation of ISD facility because of the threatening of the complainant. In the circumstances, they argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service and the complainant is not entitled to get any amount.

                 9. However, opposite parties has not adduced any oral evidence in their favour.  But they have cross examined the complainant and filed one document which was marked as Ext.B1 through the complainant which is the copy of the terms and conditions of the plan form.

                 10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the transfer of prepaid connection to the post paid connection and vice versa.  The only dispute between the parties is with regard to the excess bill amount and refund of the security amount of Rs.1000/-.  According to the complainant, in the prepaid connection, his total bill amount for one month was only Rs.299/- including ISD facilities.  But in the post paid connection 2 bill amounts are Rs.962/- and Rs.879/- respectively. The complainant has also alleged that the opposite party did not give the receipt and detailed bills in time.  But the opposite party totally denied the allegations of the complainant.  However, on a perusal of the available evidence it is seen that the complainant has not proved his allegation such as misrepresentation, cheating, etc with cogent evidence.  At the same time, Ext.B1, Bill Plan Enrollment Form document clearly shows that the complainant had put his signature.  In cross examination PW1 admitted   Ext.B1 document which shows the terms and conditions the monthly rent of Rs.225/-, 100 free SMS, 400 minutes free talk time, etc.  The complainant paid Rs.50/- for reduction in call rates of 10ps/minute.  But the complainant did not follow the proper instructions to activate the 10ps/minute all.  Moreover, the complainant has not adduced any evidence for showing that the bill amount is exorbitant.  Complainant himself had admitted that the opposite party had remitted Rs.1000/- as security for the activation of ISD facility and also stated that the complainant has not paid any amount to the opposite party.  Opposite party followed the terms and conditions of Ext B1 document.      In the circumstances and in the absence of any allegation of fraud against opposite party, we could not find any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant.  Therefore no deficiency in service can be fixed against the opposite parties. 

                 11. Mere allegation alone is not sufficient for establishing a case.  In the absence of any supporting evidence in favour of the complainant’s allegation and as per the terms and conditions in Ext.B1, which is accepted by the complainant clearly shows that the complainant’s allegations are baseless.  Therefore, we find that opposite parties has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  Hence this complaint is found not allowable and is liable to be dismissed.

                 12. In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

                 Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25^th day of November, 2014.

                                                                                    (Sd/-)

                                                                              Sheela Jacob,

                                                                         (Member – II)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)            :   (Sd/-)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)      :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  P.V. Anujan

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Bill dated16.04.2014 for Rs.962/- issued by the opposite  

        party in the name of the complainant. 

A2 :  Bill for Rs.879.39/- issued by the opposite party in the 

        name of the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1  :  Photocopy of the terms and conditions of the plan form.    

                                                                                (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) P.V. Anujan, Prasadam, Karackal.P.O.,

                   Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta, Pin – 689 108.                                (2) Manager, IDEA Agency, Muthoor Junctioin,

            Thiruvalla – 689 107.

1.  Integra Net Works Centre, CVP Diamond Plaza,

            Muthoor, Thiruvalla – 689 107.

       (4) The Stock File.