Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/483

Avninder Kumar Kalsy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

compl in person

10 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 483 dated 15.10.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 10.08.2022.

Avninder Kumar Kalsy, Advocate, R/o. B-IX-1168, Rupa Mal Street, Ludhiana

IInd Address:

Chamber No.727, District Courts, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                           ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Vodafone Idea Limited (Erstwhile Idea Cellular Limited), having its Registered Office at Suman Tower, Plot No.18, Sector-II, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat-382011 through its Chairman.
2. Vodafone Idea Limited (Erstwhile Idea Cellular Limited), C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-160055, through its Manager.
3. Vodafone Idea Limited (Erstwhile Idea Cellular Limited), Shop No.4, Near Geeta Mandir, Daresi Road, Ludhiana through its Manager.                                                                                      …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,      1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Complainant Sh. Avninder Kumar Kalsy,                                                   Advocate in person

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the subscriber of the OPs vide mobile telephone connection No.98143-75794. The complainant had subscribed for post paid plan of Rs.199/- per month. On 11.09.2019, all of a sudden, a text message was received from the OPs that the plan has been changed to new Nirvana plan with monthly charges of Rs.299/-. Therefore, the alteration of the plan from the existing plan of Rs.199/- to Rs.299/- per month without the consent of the complainant cannot be justified and it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to restore the original plan of Rs.199/- per month and all the subsequent bills be also modified by applying a tariff of Rs.199/- per month and the OPs be further made to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for their illegal acts.

2.                Upon notice, OP3 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.01.2020.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP1 and OP2. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OP1 and OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is false and frivolous. According to the OPs, the tariff plan of the complainant was changed from ‘RET UL299@249_6M’ to ‘Nirvana 299’ on 17.09.2019 through Bulk migration as per the guidelines with prior intimation to the complainant by sending a SMS on 11.09.2019 on his mobile number. Moreover, with the change of the plan, the complainant did not suffer any monetary loss. Rather the billing amount of the complainant decreased. Besides, the tariff plan of the complainant was changed as per the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India notification dated 21.03.2006 which allows the OPs to increase to plan after six months from the date of enrolment of subscriber to a particular plan. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP1 and OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Manoj Madan, Authorized Signatory along with documents Ex. OP1 to Ex. OP4 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have also gone through records.

7.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that he had subscribed to a post paid plan having tariff of Rs.199/- per month which was wrongly changed by the OPs to Rs.299/- per month without the consent of the complainant and no notice was also issued to the complainant prior to changing the plan. In this regard, it has been pointed out by OP1 and OP2 that as a matter of fact, the plan earlier subscribed to by the complainant was not a plan with a tariff of Rs.199/- per month. In fact, the complainant was paying Rs.249/- per month as is evident from the bills dated 16.06.2019, 16.07.2019, 16.08.2019 and 16.09.2019 which pertained to the period from 01.06.2019 to 30.08.2019 and in all these bills, the monthly charges are mentioned as Rs.249/-. Therefore, this part of the claim that the complainant had subscribed to a plan of Rs.199/- per month is wrong as aforesaid bills clearly state that the monthly charges were Rs.249/-. The veracity of the bills from June to September have not been disputed by the complainant.

8.                Secondly, as per notification dated 21.03.2006 Ex. OP3 issued by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, a telecom service provider can vary the tariff in respect of a particular plan after a period of six months from the date of the enrolment of the subscriber to a particular plan. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for OP1 and OP2, prior the change of the plan, an SMS was duly sent to the complainant and even otherwise there has been a reduction of total amount of the bills even after the change of the plan. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Avninder Kumar Kalsy Vs M/s. Idea Cellular Limited              CC/19/483 

Present:       Complainant Sh. Avninder Kumar Kalsy, Advocate in person.

                   Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate for OP1 and OP2.

                   OP3 exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.