CC No.1460.2015

Filed on 06.08.2015

Disposed on 17.05.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF MAY 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1460/2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

PRESENT:

    Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

            PRESIDENT

                 Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                          MEMBER

                                           V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 06.08.2015 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- regarding mental agony, mental torcher and inconvenience, to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- as legal expenses and other reliefs. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:-

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that he is the customer of Opposite Party since past ten years in, number 9844321829, initially he is in prepaid plan, thereafter the force of Opposite Party’s representatives Complainant had changed from prepaid plan to postpaid plan in the month of October 2013.   Presently he had been in postpaid service availed at Rs.170/- per monthly plan and his maximum credit limit is of Rs.900/-.  Till December 2014 his bill was exceeded more than Rs.500/-.  In the month of January 2015 he had got internet connection to his number and the cost of internet facility is of Rs.255/- p.m and one GB data.  Such being the case his bill amount should not be exceeding more than Rs.755/-, because his phone charge is maximum plan Rs.255/- internet charge plus Rs.500/-, but till getting the internet availability his phone bill was not exceeded Rs.500/-.  Surprisingly the Opposite Party have sent bill of Rs.1066/- in the month of January 2015, Rs.2,874/- in the month of February and Rs.1138/-, in the month of March 2015, even though his credit limit is Rs.900/-.  The Complainant has asked details of call list of his number in so many times by orally and also through e-mails, but Opposite Party have not responded properly till today, and he has asked about what is cost of his calls.  The Opposite Party have caused lot of inconvenience while he is in postpaid service, meantime Opposite Party had disconnected his outgoing and internet facility without any notice, even he have been using network past ten years and also he had paid the disputed bills because the number is very precious as this number has been circulated all his clients, family, and friends even Opposite Party have not given time to clarify about un imaginary mobile bills, when he have asked about the bills Opposite Party have disconnected the service to the Complainant’s outgoing calls, by that way Opposite Party have caused more inconvenience and harass like anything.  Because of Opposite Party deficiency of service some of the clients are put great difficulties, and also Complainant had suffered mental stress and mental agony. Hence this complaint

2.  In response to the notice, the Opposite Party put their appearance through their counsel and filed their version.  In their version pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed.  The present dispute raised by  is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum in view of the Judgement rendered by the Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No.1949/2011  between Siddalingaswamy and Anil Ambani and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 dt.01.09.2009 in the matter between General Manage, Telecom V/s M.Krishnan & another reported in 2009 AIR SCW-5631 and subsequent judgement of National Commission, since the dispute raised by the Complainant is between he subscriber and telecom service provider, he remedy available for the Complainant is under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides for adjudication of dispute under the provisions of Arbitration Act, on this count itself he present complaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.  The Complainant has availed the postpaid services from the Opposite Party by submitting a Customer Application Form (CAF) and admitted the terms and conditions. It is an admitted fact that the service availed by the Complainant was utilized or the activities, as such the service is utilized for his transaction and hence on this count itself the complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum.  The Complainant has availed the service of voice and DATA (internet service) service from this Respondent, the bill was generated by this respondent for a sum of Rs.1,066/-in the Month of Januayr-2015, a sum of s.2,874/- for the month of Febraury-2015 and a sum of Rs.1138/- for the month of March 2015.  That the bill will be generated by this Respondent based on the services used by the Complainant and therefore the allegation made by the Complainant is only to harass the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant has produced a Normal bill along with the Complainant.  The Opposite Party is producing the detailed bill for the Month of March 2015.  Therefore, the billing is proper and accurate.  Even the bills for the period 25-Dec-2014 to 24-Jan-2015 and 25-Jan-2015 to 24-Feb-2015 have been calculated in the same manner.  We are in the process of retrieving those bills and prays the court to grant liberty to file the same in future.  Similarly, the credit limit is only an internal parameter/alarm to avoid credit risk of the Opposite Party.  However, the Opposite Party has the liberty to allow the customer to use beyond the credit limit at his risk, but for a privileged customer considering the long standing relationship and the previous pay patterns.  The Complainant is not entitled to recover any damages as thee no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.   Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.
3. The Complainant, Sri.Prasanna G.R has been filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party, the affidavit of                           Sri.Gurudatta H.R has been filed.  Heard the arguments of both parties.

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proves the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Negative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

7.   POINT NO.1:- As looking into the averments made in the complaint and the version filed by the Opposite Party, it is not in dispute that the Complainant is the customer of Opposite Party since past ten years with bearing number 9844321829 and it is also not in dispute that the Complainant had to be paid and changed from prepaid plan to postpaid plan in the month of October 2013.  

It is the case of the Complainant, presently he had been in postpaid service availed at Rs.170/- per monthly plan and his maximum credit limit is of Rs.900/-.  Till December 2014 his bill was exceeded more than Rs.500/-.  In the month of January 2015 he had got internet connection to his number and the cost of internet facility is of Rs.255/- p.m and one GB data.  The bill amount should not be exceeding more than Rs.755/-, because his phone charge is maximum plan Rs.255/- internet charge plus Rs.500/-, but till getting the internet availability his phone bill was not exceeded Rs.500/-.  Surprisingly the Opposite Party have sent bill of Rs.1066/- in the month of January 2015, Rs.2,874/- in the month of February and Rs.1138/-, in the month of March 2015, even though his credit limit is Rs.900/-.  The Complainant has asked details of call list of his number in so many times by orally and also through e-mails, but Opposite Party have not responded properly till today.  The Opposite Party have caused lot of inconvenience while he is in postpaid service, meantime Opposite Party had disconnected his outgoing and internet facility without any notice, even he have been using network past ten years and also he had paid the disputed bills because the number is very precious as this number has been circulated all his clients, family, and friends.   In order to substantiate this fact, the Complainant filed his affidavit, in his sworn testimony reiterated the same and produced the bills for the period 25.12.2014 to 24.01.2015.  As looking into this document, the credit limit is Rs.900/- and for the said period the total amount payable is 1066.70 paisa.  Even by looking into this bill itself it clearly mentioned regarding the detail of the bill amount i.e., usage charges of Rs.494.43 paisa and other monthly charges, Service Tax and others and also produced the bill for the period of 25.01.2015.  As looking into this bill, the total bill amount is Rs.2,874.55 paisa that includes monthly charges of Rs.200/-, feature charges of Rs.265.13 paisa, Usage charge Rs.2093.20 paisa, service tax Rs.307/- and other tax.  Even by looking into the documents produced by the Complainant himself, it clearly reveals that the Opposite Party have charged in accordance with the procedure but they have not charged any excess amount as contended in the complaint.  Thereby, the evidence of the Complainant cannot be acceptable.

Further the Complainant in the complaint alleges that the Opposite Party have caused lot of inconvenience by disconnecting his outgoing calls and internet facilities without notice.   Even to substantiate this also the Complainant has not placed any material evidence that he is regular and promptly paid the bills issued by the Opposite Party. 

It is the defence of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant has not regular in payment of bills, hence the calls were barred on 04.02.2015 and the same restored on 05.02.2015 on payment of pending bills.  Once again on 18.02.2015 selective barring has been made and on payment of excess usage amount, restored the connection.  The inconvenience caused only due to the act of the Complainant but he due to act of the Opposite Party and denied that the Opposite Party has barred the calls without any notice and the Complainant was in the habit of not clearing the bills even after the due date and also after much persuasion by the respondents.  The Complainant cannot pick and choose the bills of his choice.   In order to substantiate this defence, the Opposite Party, Sri.Gurudatta H.R, in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and this evidence of the Opposite Party has not been challenged by the Complainant and furthermore if the Complainant has paid the bills regularly.  To substantiate that the Complainant ought to have produce the bills, but the Complainant have not produced the bills.   For that reason only, the Opposite Party barred the calls when the Complainant had not paid the bills and after paying the due amount restore the same thereby absolutely there is no evidence in support of the allegation of the Complainant that the Opposite Party have caused inconvenience to the Complainant by disconnecting his outgoing calls and internet facility.  The Complainant fails to prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party by issuing bills for a sum of Rs.1066/- in the month of January 2015, Rs.2874/- in the month of February and Rs.1138/- in the month of March 2015 causing mental agony to the Complainant.    Hence, this point is held in the Negative.

11. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 17^th day of May 2017)

         MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.Muddaveeraiah, who being 2^nd Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Medical Policy
2. Legal Notice dt.14.02.2015
3. Reply Notice dt.09.03.2015
4. Bill dt.07.11.2014, 10.11.2014, 11.11.2014, 13.11.2014
5. Receipt dt.10.11.2014
6. CT Adomen & Pelvis dt.07.11.2014

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

1. Sri.John Noronha, the Joint Vie Presiding of the Opposite Party.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

1. Proposal Form
2. Medi Classic Insurance Policy
3. Citations

     MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT