BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Saturday the 30th day of July, 2005
CD.No.29/2004
K.Ranga Rao,
S/o K.Narasimha Rao,
D.No.1-1279-1,
H.B.S.Colony,
Yemmiganur,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
Idea Cellular Agent,
U.T.Y and Sons Cellular,
Park Road,
Yemmiganur. . . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 22.07.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri.K.Ranga Rao, In person complainant and Sri.A.Chandra Mouliswara Reddy, Advocate for opposite party and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy Hon’ble Member)
CC.No.29/2004
1. This consumer disputes case of the complainant is filed under 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay him Rs.683/- with interest at 18% per annum for the post paid Idea Cellular Card Rs.1,000/- as compensation of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant has been informed by the opposite party, the Idea Mobile Cell connection with post paid service will be given for Rs.99/- only. This aspect also as been advertised widely through the banners by the opposite party. By seeing all this, the complainant approached the manager of the opposite party and taken SIM Card No.114653 for Rs.99/- only with the deposit amount of Rs.810/- and the opposite party gave the receipt No.35 for the said amount and allotted Cell No.9848114653. This transaction was taken place on 28-11-2003 at 630 P.M. The complainant further alleged that for one week the cell which obtained from the opposite party wherein the incoming cells were not received by the complainant due to error, after complaint they said fact, the opposite party rectified the said defect. As per the terms of the said Ideal Cellular connection, the rental charge is only Rs.99/- and incoming cells will be free. But the opposite party on 19-11-2003 bill (account No.110486441 and statement No.031200125047) the opposite party shown as Rs770/- towards total payment receipt and rental charge as Rs.168.30Ps., feature charges Rs.42.50 Ps., Airtel charges Rs.87.05 Ps (without details of date) and service tax as Rs.79.05 Ps with all these the net paid amount was Rs.297.024 Ps., all these aspects shows this nothing but trade mall practice and deficiency in service. The attitude of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and liability to pay the balance amount of Rs.683/- which is paid towards post paid Idea Cellular Card with 18% per annum and Rs.1,000/- as compensation of this case.
3. The complainant in support of its case placed reliance on the following documents Viz. (1) The receipt No.35 issued by the opposite party to the complainant for Rs.810/-. (2) Statement of account of No.1.10486441 with statement No.031200125047 dated 19-12-2003 and bill period was 19-11-2003 to 18-12-2003. (3) Notice dated 26-12-2003 given by the complainant to the opposite party. (4) The Courier receipt No.7608175042 dated 26-12-2003 through which the notice has been sent to the opposite party. (5) The acknowledgement of opposite party of the said notice in courier receipt No.7608175042, besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his complaint averments and written arguments dated 19-10-2004 and 13-12-2004 and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.a5 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party appeared before this Forum through its counsel and filed written version, sworn affidavit in reiteration of its averments. The allegations made in the complaint are all not true, correct, valid and tenable except the allegation at Para 2 is true that the complainant was subscriber of Ideal Cellular Limited and made payment of Rs.810/-.
5. The written version of opposite party submits that the opposite party being the dealer of Ideal Cellular Limited, the opposite party being represented by Idea Cellular Limited, 5-9-62, K.L.L. Estate, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad-1 and the allegations made in the complaint are all not true, correct, valid and tenable and the allegations that are not expressly traversed herein are hereby denied and the complainant is put to strict of the same. As to the allegations at Paragraph 2, the opposite party humbly submits that, it is true that the complainant was the subscriber of Idea Cellular Limited and made a payment of Rs.810/- i.e., (1) Rs.250/- towards non-refundable activation fee and Rs.20/- as service tax on the same. (2) Rs.500/- However, as the tax component of Rs.40/- was not captured by the billing system due to a technical snag, the same rectified on 5 March, 2004 and accordingly a credit of Rs.40/- was given to the complainant’s account. Further, as per BUZZ 99 package plan, Rs.500/- is collected as plan enrollment fee, which can be converted in to refundable deposit provided the complainant is a subscriber of Idea Cellular Limited continuously for a period of more than 12 months. The opposite party further submits that, the relationship between the complainant and the opposite party (Idea Cellular Limited) is governed by the terms and conditions of the Customer Service Agreement. The complainant submitted the Customer Service Agreement along with BUZZ 99 package plan from on 27-11-2003. The opposite party further submits that, in the first invoice, basing on the billing date of the complainant, appropriated monthly rental as well the usage charges would be levied along with one month’s advance monthly rental and the said fact is evident from Clause 3 of terms and conditions of BUZZ 99 package plan form. As a law abiding citizen, for the service rendered by the opposite party (Idea Cellular Limited), it is lawful for the opposite party (Idea Cellular Limited) to collect the service tax and remit the same to the Government of India. The said fact that the service is liable for service tax at 8% is mentioned at clause number 8 of the terms and conditions of the BUZZ 99 package plan form. All the terms and conditions in detail were explained to the complainant at the time of joining the subscription with the opposite party. Hence, the allegations of the complainant to the effect that the charges were unreasonably levied to his account are incorrect. The opposite party further submits that, it is true that the complainant addressed a letter dated 26-12-2003 and the same is received by the opposite party. On receipt of the said communication, the opposite party met the complainant and clarified to the satisfaction of the complainant regarding the disputed bill and the copies of invoices dated 19 December, 2004, 19 January, 2004 and 19 February, 2004. It would be clearly evident from the outgoing call details of invoice dated 19 January, 2004, wherein he complainant has been making outgoing calls as latest as 15 January, 2004 though the complainant addressed a letter on 26, December, 2003 seeking cancellation of account. This very conduct of the complainant would establish the malafides intention of the complainant in utilizing the service of the opposite party while attempting to gain grounds for filing the present vexatious complaint. The proof of delivery obtained form the courier service is one such instance of the evil design of the complainant. The Opposite party further submits that, admittedly the complaint is already availing the service of another cellular operator and the present complaint is only filed with an intention to gain undue enrichment under the guise of deficiency of service. The complainant though having addressed a letter dated 26, December, 2003 seeking cancellation and after having secured proof of delivery of such letter from the courier agency, consciously continued to utilize the service of the opposite party (Idea Cellular Limited A.P. Circle) as latest as 15, January 2004. Thus, the complainant is stopped by his conduct in availing the service even after addressing a letter and after having secured proof of delivery document. As such the said document cannot be looked into and the complaint suffers from lack of bonafidies and the complainant only with an intention to evade and avoid making payment of Rs.441/- payable to the opposite party (Idea Cellular Limited) while making attempts to gain under enrichment by seeking refund and damages and comfortably utilizing the services of other cellular operator. This Honourable Forum cannot be made a platform to gain undue enrichment and the complainant should be penalized for approaching the Honourable Forum with unclean hands under the guise of seeking justice. Hence in the wake of the aforesaid submissions, the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any claim of whatsoever. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs and to penalize the complainant for filling this vexatious complaint.
6. In support of its case the opposite party filed the following documents Viz (1) bill dated 19.12.2003 for the period from 19.11.2003 to 18.12.2003 (2) bill dated 19.01.2004 for the period from 19.12.2003 to 19.01.2004 (3) bill dated 19.02.2004 from the period from 19.01.2004 to 18.02.2004 (4) customer service agreement entered by the complainant with the opposite party, besides to its sworn affidavit in support of its case, written arguments dated 08.10.2004 and dated 13.11.2004 and above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to Ex. B4 for its appreciation in this case.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of opposite party towards him and there by his entitleness to the reliefs sought.
8. There is no dispute as to the payment of Rs.810/- to become subscriber of Idea Cellular Limited of the opposite party. The only dispute is regarding the billing. In substantiation of the complaint case he relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 the Ex.A1 is the receipt No.35issued by the opposite party to the complainant for Rs.810/-. Regarding this there is no dispute. The Ex.A2/Ex.B1 is the bill dated 19.12.2003 for the period from 19.11.2003 to 18.12.2003. Which shows net payable amount as Rs.297/- by the complainant. The Ex.A3 is the notice given by the complainant to the opposite party on 26.12.2003 through Ex.A4 which was acknowledged by the opposite party through Ex.A5 except this no tangible or cogent material filed by the complainant to prove this case. Whereas the opposite party in substantiation is case relied on Ex.B1 to B4. The Ex.B1 is the bill dated 19.12.2003 for the period from 19.11.2003 to 18.12.2003. The Ex.B2 is the bill dated 19.01.2004 for a period from 19.12.2003 to 18.01.2004 and the Ex.B3 is the bill dated 19.02.2004 for the period from 19.01.2004 to 18.02.2004. All these bills clearly shows above detail billing of the complainant i.e. Ex.A1/ Ex.B1. to Ex.B3 wherein the complainant has at tot pay Rs.4801.78 P.s to the opposite party, whereas the tax componate of Rs.40/- was not captured by the billing system due to a technical snag, the same was rectified on 05.03.2004 and accordingly a credit of Rs.40/- (adjustment) was given to the complainant’s account. This is clear as per written argument of opposite party wherein he enclosed the same with it. After this adjustment of the complainant as to pay i.e.(Rs.480.78 Ps to Rs.40/-) Rs.440.78Ps which is rounded off as Rs. 441/-. The Ex.B4 is the customer’s service agreement along with “Buzz 99” Idea Cellular terms and conditions wherein the complainant call a management and value added service opted for “Call conferencing” (No detailed billing) and caller line Identification for the complaint’s Idea Cellular connection and further it is mentioned in the Ex.B4, the detail of one time chargement i.e. security deposit as Rs.540/- and activation fee as Rs. 270/- and the total as Rs.810/- (this particular details for Ex A1). In written arguments of opposite party it is mentioned that the complainant though having addressed a letter dated 26.12.2003 seeking cancellation and after having secured proof of delivery of such letter from the courier agency (Ex. A5) consciously continued to utilize the service of the opposite party (Idea Cellular Limited)as latest as 15.01.2004(Ex.B2) Thus the complainant is stopped by his conduct in availing the service even after addressing a letter and after having secured proof of delivery document (Ex.5). As such they said document cannot be looked into and the complainant suffers from lack of bonafidies. It is also very clear from the Ex.B3, the complainant’s net payable amount was Rs.480.78Ps less Rs.40/- i.e. 440.78 P.s (Rs 441/-) after adjustment on 05.03.2004. The complainant suppressed all these facts as mentioned in Ex.B2 to Ex.B4 and prayed this consumer Forum to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.683/- which the complainant alleges as due from the opposite party and compensation of Rs.1,000/- by merely filling Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 by the complainant without any proof or evidence or any cogent material does not mean that the contents in the complainant there are necessary true and make liable the opposite party to pay the amounts, which the complainant claimed in its complaint.
9. Having regarded to over all consideration, there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate any deficiency against the opposite party.
10. Therefore, in the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictation to the Stenographer Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 30th day of July, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite party:- Nil
-Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Receipt No.35 issued by opposite party to the complainant for Rs.810/-.
Ex.A2 Bill statement of account dated 19-12-2003 for the period 19-11-2003 to 18-12-2003.
Ex.A3 Notice given by the complainant to opposite party dated
26-12-2003.
Ex.A4 Courier receipt No.7608175042 dated 26-12-2003.
Ex.A5 Acknowledgement of opposite party in courier receipt No.7608175042.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Bill dated 19-12-2003 for the period 19-11-2003 to 18-12-2003.
Ex.B2 Bill dated 19-12-2003 for the period 19 December, 2003 to
18-01-2004.
Ex.B3 Bill dated 19-02-2003 for the period 19 January, 2004 to
19-02-2004.
Ex.B4 Customer Service Agreement entered by complainant with opposite party.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
