BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 636 of 2014

Date of Institution: 04-12-2014

Date of Decision: 21-08-2015

Mr.Surinder Duggal, Director of M/s.Lebon Pharmaceuticals, Kucha Dai Khana, Katra Sher Singh, Amritsar. 

Complainant

Versus

1. Idea Cellular Limited, through its Branch Manager, R.S.Tower, Amritsar.
2. Idea Cellular Limited, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase 7, Mohali, Pin-160055.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Amit Kapoor, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Exparte.

    For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.K.K.Thakur, Advocate.         

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Surinder Duggal  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is using the Idea Sim with Mobile No. 9814457170 from the last 14 years  and he has instructed the Opposite Party to send the monthly bill directly to his bank account with HDFC Bank. Complainant alleges that he received a bill No. 0195311287 dated 1.11.2014 for Opposite Party  in which they have charged internet use amounting to Rs.52,602/- without intimating him. The complainant never used the internet between 3.10.2014 to 5.10.2014. The complainant requested number of times to Opposite Party in this regard, but to no affect. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to refund the extra billed amount of Rs.52,602/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1, so Opposite Party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order datd 9.1.2015 of this Forum.
3. On notice, Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant had used the services while his visit to foreign country. The complainant availed the services while his foreign visit which is of international operator, therefore, for the proper adjudication of the dispute in question, it is pre-requisite to implead the said operator as necessary party in the present complaint which had deliberately been not made as necessary  party in the present complaint just to cause loss to the answering Opposite Party.  The complainant used the internet  services during his foreign visit. It is pertinent to mention here that in case of international roaming, the customer is not availing services on the network of Idea i.e. likewise in the said case, the complainant had gone to Singapore, the bill is generated purely on the basis of usage of customer as latched on foreign/ international telecom service provider with roaming tie-ups all across and anywhere in the world with international roaming rates as applicable in the said country wherein the customer was roaming as such. So, the complainant can not run from his liability to pay for the services availed by him. In this regard, e-mail sent by the complainant was duly answered by the Opposite Party  in which the Opposite Party  duly informed the complainant about the services availed by him. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Manoj Madan, Manager Ex.OP2/1  alongwith copy of bill dated 1.11.2014 Ex.OP2/2 and copy of e-mail Ex.OP2/3.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that  the complainant has Idea  Mobile Connection bearing No. 9814457170. The complainant has internet facility on this mobile connection. The complainant submitted that he went to Singapore and as such did not use the internet between 3.10.2014 to 5.10.2014. However, the Opposite Parties sent bill dated 1.11.2014 Ex.C2 in which the Opposite Parties have charged internet usage amounting to Rs.52,602/-. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties and also sent letter dated  8.11.2014 Ex.C3, letter dated 12.11.2014 Ex.C4 and also sent reminder dated 14.11.2014 through e-mail Ex.C5, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the complainant went to Singapore and he used the services particularly the internet services while his visit to foreign country which is of international operator. The bill in question dated 1.11.2014 Ex.C2 was raised in accordance with the usage of the services availed by the complainant. It is clearly mentioned in the bill that the complainant used the internet services during his foreign visit. Opposite Party  submitted that  in case of international roaming, the customer is not availing services on the network of Idea i.e. in the present case, the complainant had gone to Singapore, the bill is generated purely on the basis of usage of customer as latched on foreign/ international telecom service provider with roaming tie-ups all across and anywhere in the world with international roaming rates as applicable in the said country wherein the customer is roaming as such.  Detailed bill mentioning the services availed by the complainant between 3.10.2014 to 5.10.2014 in computerized form is Ex.OP2/2. In this regard, the complainant was duly informed vide e- mail Ex.OP2/3.  Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has Idea Mobile Connection bearing No. 9814457170 with internet facility. The complainant went to Singapore from 3.10.2014 to 5.10.2014 where he used the internet facility/ services during his foreign visit. Complainant has submitted that he did not use the internet services from  3.10.2014 to 5.10.2014, but the complainant could not produce any evidence in this regard, whereas the bills and the details of bill Ex.C2/ Ex.OP2/2 fully proves that the complainant used the internet facility/ services in Singapore and that too at large scale.  In case of international roaming, as there is no networking of Idea in Singapore, the bill is generated purely on the basis of usage of customer as latched on foreign/ international telecom service provider with roaming tie-ups all across and anywhere in the world, with international roaming rates as applicable in the said country wherein the customer is roaming as such. The complainant has availed the roaming facility in Singapore which is international roaming services and this bill Ex.C2 was issued by the Opposite Parties on the basis of international roaming charges. The complainant has admitted that he remained in Singapore from 3.10.2014 to 5.10.2014. It stands fully proved on record that he used the international facility in Singapore on the aforesaid mobile connection and that too in large scale which is evident from the bill and detail Ex.OP2/2. The complainant has availed the international services of Singapore un-interruptedly, so the Opposite Parties were justified in claiming the bill Ex.C2/ Ex.OP2/2 on the basis of international roaming services/ facility charges. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.       
10.     Resultantly, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 21-08-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member