Punjab

Sangrur

CC/297/2017

Dr. Rakesh Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Ltd.Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

27 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    297

                                                Instituted on:      03.07.2017

                                                Decided on:       27.02.2018

 

Dr. Rakesh Arora son of Dr. D.N. Arora, resident of Arora Nursing Home, Moti Bazar, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Idea Cellular Private Ltd. Registered Office: Idea Cellular Private Ltd. C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-VII, Mohali 160055, Punjab.

2.             Idea Cellular Private Ltd. Branch Office: Golden Gift & Antique House, Multani Chowk, College Road, Malerkotla.

3.             Jain Telecom, through its Proprietor/Partner, Multani Chowk, College Road, Malerkotla.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Ramandeep, Advocate.

For OP No.2              :       Shri Lovepreet Walia, Advocate.

For OP No.3              :       Shri S.M.Goyal, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Dr. Rakesh Arora, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by obtaining one post paid sim card and is using the same. The complainant being an imminent doctor of considerable repute and having patients in India and abroad travels abroad on   regular basis and the complainant is having a habit to purchase a matrix sim card every time, when he travels abroad and he switches off the sim card provided by the Ops, as the fee charged by the Ops is exorbitant and not as per the complainants liking.  The case of the complainant is that he travelled to UAE and Europe in September, 2016 and accordingly approached the Ops for favourable international roaming plans, since the plans offered by the Ops were expensive, as such he applied for a matrix sim card for his travel.  The complainant on 21.09.2016 left for his trip on landing in Dubai and the complainant switched on his phone for less than a minute or so, as a result of automatic setting in his dual sim card phone, the usage sim moved to Idea instead of Matrix, after which the complainant switched off his phone for the rest of the journey in Dubai. Later on upon reaching Italy, the same thing repeated itself and the complainant received a message on 21^st September, 2016 that his current usage is Rs.1,27,000/-, whereas upon coming back to India he received a bill for Rs.80,000/-.  Further case of the complainant is that the Ops also intimated him that the credit limit of the complainant is Rs.1,64,600/-.  Further case of the complainant is that the OPs on being requested to revise the bill and check the anomalies in the bill, the Ops added Rs.22,367/- and sent a revised bill for Rs.1,02,367/-, which is said to be wrong and illegal.  Further case of the complaint is that upon further investigation, the complainant also got an insight on how international roaming works under the Telecom Industry and the complainant never requested for activation of international roaming, the complainant is not liable to pay such an in exorbitant  amount.  Nothing happened despite serving of legal notice upon the Ops. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to retract the bill for Rs.1,02,367.31 and revise the same according to the usage of the mobile phone and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, baseless, misconceived and is an abuse of process of law and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint as the dispute involved in the present complaint is as much as it is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of consumer dispute.  It is admitted that the complainant went to Dubai and Italy in the month of September 2016 and he took the mobile number 9814229121 with him.  However, it is denied that the complainant availed any international roaming pack when he went to Dubai and Italy in the month of September, 2016.  Further it is stated that the complainant used the GPRS and calling services in the international roaming due to which he was charged and the bill in dispute was generated.  On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. However, it is stated that the complainant has been using the mobile number 9814029121 and from the usage, it can be presumed that the complainant was travelling to UAE and Europe in September, 2016.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto and stated further that the demand is quite legal and justified.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not legally maintainable and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer qua OP number 2 as he has not availed any services of the OP number 2.   Lastly, the OP number 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3, the written reply has been filed on the similar lines as filed by OP number 2.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1  to Ex.C-6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-10 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

6.             Record shows that the evidence of the Ops number 2 and 3 was closed by order of the Forum on 5.2.2018.

 

7.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

8.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops by obtaining the mobile connection in question which he was using in India as well as abroad.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is only on account of excess demand to the tune of Rs.1,02,367.31 on account of international roaming charges and has further sought revision of the same according to the usage of the mobile in question by the complainant on the ground that he never availed such a facility of the OPs nor he ever used the mobile set in question.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the complainant had visited Dubai and Italy in the month of September 2016 and he took the mobile number 9814229121 with him, where the complainant activated the international roaming facility on his phone.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the OP number 1 that the complainant received various calls including from India and as such, the demand is said to be justified. A bare perusal of the bill Ex.C-2 clearly reveals that in the bill for Rs.102375.48, there is an amount of Rs.87593.76 on account of roaming charges only and the details of the charges is also attached therewith. A further bare perusal of it reveals that the OP has charged an amount of Rs.50415/- on account of Dubai roaming and further an amount of Rs.36712/- on account of Italy roaming for the period from 8.9.2016 to 7.10.2016.   But, the stand of the complainant is that he never requested the OPs for providing the international roaming facility, but the fact remains that the complainant has availed/used the roaming facility. In the circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be met, if the OPs number 1 and 2 are directed to provide the complete details of the call charges to the complainant on account of the amount raised against the complainant and thereafter to charge for the complainant as per his usage only.

 

9.             In view of the above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to provide the complete details of the call charges along with pulse rate so charged by the OPs number 1 and 2 to the complainant on account of the amount raised against the complainant and thereafter to charge as per the usage only.  We further direct the Ops number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records. 

                Pronounced.

                February 27, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                               

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member