Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/338/2015

Surinder Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

Aman Singla

01 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/338/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	01/06/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	01/03/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Surinder Mittal son of Late Sh. O.P. Mittal, resident of House No. 402, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh.

 …………… Complainant.

Vs

 

[1]  Idea Cellular Limited, C-105, Phase VII, Industrial Area, Mohali (Punjab), through its CEO.

 

[2]  Registered Office:

Idea Cellular Limited, Suman Tower, Plot No.18, Sector 11, Gandhinagar – 382011, Gujarat, through its authorized representative.

 

[3]  Corporate Office:

Idea Cellular Limited, Windsor, 5^th Floor, Off CST Road, near Vidya Nagari, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400098, through its authorized representative.

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SMT.SURJEET KAUR                PRESIDING MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA         MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Aman Singla, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Ms. Rameet Bakshi, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant got the ISD facility (international roaming facility) activated on his mobile no. 98140-39463 by depositing a refundable security of Rs.2,000/- with the Opposite Parties on 16.05.2015 during his trip to China and Hong Kong from 17.05.2015 to 23.05.2015. As per the plan offered to the Complainant by the representative of the Opposite Parties, he had to pay only Rs.149/- per month as rental to the Opposite Parties and other call charges would be levied only if he either answers a call or make any call while on ISD. When the Complainant was back from his aforesaid trip, to his utter surprise and shock, he received a message on his mobile number from the Opposite Parties that an amount of Rs.11,748.76/- was due and payable by him. It has been averred that since the Complainant has not responded to any of the incoming calls and neither made any outgoing calls while on ISD, he made clarificatory e-mails to the Opposite Parties to resolve the issue with a request to stop the said ISD facility and to refund the security of Rs.2,000/- deposited with them. In response thereto, the Complainant was informed that refundable security amount of Rs.2,000/- was adjusted against the amount of Rs.11,748.76/- and as such nothing was left with the Opposite Parties to be refunded to him. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 in their joint reply have admitted that the Complainant had neither responded to any of the incoming calls nor he had made any outgoing calls while on international roaming. It has been pleaded that the Complainant was charged for the internet/GPRS services for Rs.11,863.86P which were used by him while in international roaming and the same were charged correctly at the rate of Rs.5/10 kb. The said fact was duly intimated to the Complainant. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties has been controverted.

 

5.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents on record.

 

6.      The main grievance of the Complainant is that he has been wrongly charged Rs.11,748.76P in his bill for use of the mobile phone during international roaming. The Complainant has asserted that he has not used the mobile phone during his international visit as he has neither made any call nor he has received any call on his mobile phone while on ISD. This position has not been refuted by the Opposite Parties in their written version. The contention of the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant had availed the GPRS services while in international roaming at the rate of Rs.5/10kb due to which he received the bill of the aforesaid amount which was generated purely on the basis of his usage. In support of this, the Opposite Parties have annexed the Call Detail Record of the Complainant for the period of stay abroad which mentions the same IMEI No. (i.e International Mobile Equipment Identity Number) and the same IMSI No. (i.e International Mobile Subscriber Identity Number), which have been duly registered in the company records as Ex.OP-2 (colly). All this makes it clear that the Complainant has been duly charged for the usage of GPRS services while in international roaming availed at his request, which remained active while he was on international roaming.

 

7.      For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
8.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01^st March, 2016                                          

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER