DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 2016
Date of institution: 21.01.2016 Date of decision : 21.08.2017
Ved Parkash Singh son of late Hakam Singh, 364, Phase-2, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
Idea Cellular Ltd., Phase-7, Industrial Area, Mohali, Punjab.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Ms. Rameet Bakshi, counsel for the OP.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Ved Prakash Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant is using Idea post paid sim for the last 1.5 years and paying the bills on time. On 16.09.2015 he changed his monthly rental plan from 1599 to I Plan 999 and confirmatory message regarding activation of this plan was received by the complainant on his mobile from the Idea. The complainant also got it confirmed from Customer Care Executive of the OP. The complainant received the bill of Rs.7900/- on 16.10.2015 wherein monthly rent of Rs.999/- was charged as per I Plan 999 but no benefits according to I Plan 999 were given. The complainant got registered his complaint but after few days the OP refused to rectify the bill on the ground that I Plan 999 is not available for Punjab Circle. The complainant also visited Idea Store in Phase-5 Mohali and he was told the same thing that the plan in question is not available for Punjab. The complainant sent e-mails to the OP but the OP only agreed to waive 50% of internet charges. The complainant paid Rs.1600/- in November, 2015 and did not pay Rs.4042/- of the bill of October-November, 2015. On 11.12.2015 the recovery department of the OP harassed and disturbed the Manager and colleagues/friends of the complainant and asked them to pay the bill on behalf of the complainant. The complainant has prayed that the OP may be called to settle the matter amicably.
3. The complaint has been contested by the OP by filing written statement. The OP in the preliminary objections has pleaded that there is no title in the present complaint and it is a letter addressed to the President, State Consumer Court, thus the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The relief prayed by the complainant is that the OP may be called to settle the matter amicably thereby meaning that the complainant seeks compromise. This Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint as the matter pertains to a compromise. The complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum as he has not even attached the details of I Plan 999 which was availed by him. The complainant has stated that he was not given the benefits according to this plan. However, the complainant has failed to disclose the benefits which he was supposed to get as per the plan chosen by him. However, in order to avail the benefit of Free Air time within the plan in question, the user has to opt for further I Plan packs. The request dated 16.09.2015 of the complainant for change of plan was processed and intimated to him. However, the complainant did not select any I plan pack essential for availing the benefit of Free Air Time in the said plan. Bill dated 16.10.2015 for Rs.7900.37 was sent to the complainant. The complainant was charged for each service only as per the rates/charges mentioned in the plan. Internet charges were applicable at 4p/10kb and that no free data usage was included under this plan. The bill in question being a system generated has been correctly raised and that too as per the plan opted by the complainant. The plan was then de-activated by the complainant on 29.10.2015. The complainant had deposited only Rs.1600/- against the bill dated 16.10.2015. Thereafter bill dated 16.11.2015 for Rs.10343/- was sent to the complainant. The complainant has not disputed the current charges and has tried to evade liability qua the said bill under the garb of the present complaint. The complainant was given reversal of GPRS charges of Rs.3696/- on 17.11.2015. The complainant owes an amount of Rs.6069.95 towards the OP as per invoice dated 16.03.2016. The complainant has not placed any evidence on record to show that he has been wrongly billed for the services used by him and the benefits of the said plan were not given to him. Mobile number of the complainant has now been permanent disconnected on 21.01.2016 due to non payment of the bills raised by the OP. On merits also the OP has taken the similar stand and sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; e-mail Ex.C-1;l computer generated bill Ex.C-2; e-mail Ex.C-3; computer generated bill Ex.C-4; screen shot Ex.C-5; computer generated bills C-6 to C-9. In rebuttal, the counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri Manoj Madan, its authorised signatory Ex.OP-1/1; copies of details of I Plan 999 Ex.OP-1; details for I Plan packs Ex.OP-2; screen shot of the service account of the complainant Ex.OP-3; snap shot Ex.OP-4 and OP-5; bill dated 16.10.2015 Ex.OP-6; bills dated 16.11.2015, 16.12.2015, 16.01.2016 Ex.OP-7 to OP-9; snap shot Ex.OP-10; bill dated 16.02.2016 Ex.OP-11; bill dated 16.03.2016 Ex.OP-12; customer application form Ex.OP-13; snap shot Ex.OP-14 and call detail records Ex.OP-15.
5. The complainant has argued that despite activation of the plan as requested by the complainant, he was not given the benefit of the same and when the complainant requested for the same he was informed that this plan is not available for Punjab circle.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The only allegation of the complainant is that he had opted for I Plan 999 and the benefits that were promised to him have not been given despite the fact that the monthly rental has been charged to him. In support of this contention, learned counsel has relied upon decision of Hon’ble State Commission Punjab in First Appeal No.976 of 2015 titled as S.C. Khanna Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., decided on 02.05.2016. Learned counsel has further argued that even the prayer clause is not specific as the complainant has prayed for getting the matter amicably settled. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3226 of 2015 titled as SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lokesh Kumar decided on 20.02.2017 wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has remanded back the case to the District Forum as there was no prayer clause in the complaint.
7. We have perused the complaint and found that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In the entire complaint the complainant has stated that he has opted for I 999 Plan. The bills issued to the complainant shows that the monthly rental charges have been charged as Rs.999/-. Thus the monthly rentals have been charged by the OP as per the plan opted by the complainant. However, the complainant has failed to prove that he has also opted for the benefits available to that plan. Thus in view of the decision of Hon’ble State Commission in S.C. Khanna Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd.,(supra) the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Further the complainant has not sought any specific relief as he has simply prayed that the matter may be got settled amicably.
8. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 21.08.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
