Haryana

Panchkula

CC/259/2016

SEEMA CHAUDHARY. - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDEA CELLULAR. - Opp.Party(s)

PIYUSH GAUR

12 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	259 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	20.09.2016
Date of Decision	:	12.05.2017

                                                                                                 

Seema Chaudhary w/o Sh.Amardeep Chaudhary, R/o House No.153, Sector-2, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Idea Cellular Limited, Suman Tower, Plot No.18, Sector-11, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India-382011.

2.       Idea Cellular Store DSS 305, Sector-20, Panchkula (Haryana).

                                                                                       ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                  Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                             Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Piyush Gaur, Adv., for the complainant.

                             Mr.Amit Gupta, Adv., for the OPs.

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

1. Seema Chaudhary-complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that she being user of Idea Cellular, has been using the services of Idea Cellular on her mobile No.9814744153 from the last many years and has been paying the all bills and dues time to time. The average monthly charges of the complainant were less than Rs.2000/-. On 14.06.2016, the complainant visited New York from New Delhi Airport at 12:55 AM. The flight landed London Airport at 5:30 PM and the same flew from London at 8:15 PM and reached New York at 11:10 PM. After reaching New York, the complainant left for the Hotel and she noticed that there was no network in the phone, therefore, he did not use the phone. The International Airports were wifi zones so the complainant used wifi facilities in her stay till 26.06.2016 and she used ISD booths to make call to her family as the phone was useless without proper network. The complainant came back India on 28.06.2016. After reaching India, the complainant was shocked to receive a bill of Rs.16,163/- from Idea services which mostly comprised of Internet charges for 2 days. The complainant approached the Op No.2 and told them that the phone was not used and wrong bill has been generated. The complainant also told them that the credit limit of the customer was itself Rs.10,500/- and how could bill of Rs.16,163/- had been generated for which they replied that they have lodged a complaint and would rectify the same. After a month, the complainant received another bill dated 23.07.2016 for an amount of Rs.25,261/- thus totaling to Rs.41,424/- and the bill was showing internet roaming charges. The complainant again lodged a complaint vide complaint No.C169521313979 for rectification of bill for which they replied that they would sort out the matter within 48 hours. The complainant requested the Ops several times but to no avail. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. Initially, the Ops were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 31.10.2016 by this Forum, Thereafter, the OPs filed revision petition No.118 of 2016 before the Hon’ble State Commission against the order dated 31.10.2016 which was set aside by the Hon’ble State Commission and the Ops were directed to appear before the District Forum and to file written version. Thereafter, the Ops appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant became a customer of the Ops on 30.04.2003 and was using post paid mobile number 9814744153. It is submitted that the complainant visited USA in the month of June, 2016 and she had taken her mobile with her. It is submitted that in USA, the international roaming facility namely Great Britain, CINGUL USACG and UK was activated on the phone of the complainant during her travel. It is submitted that the complainant had used the internet/GPRS services and made & received calls while on International roaming. It is submitted that the complainant has not placed on record any document to show that she has been wrongly billed for the services used by her and the amount of the bill generated could not exceed the credit limit of the customer. It is submitted that the credit limit of the complainant has been varying from time to time. It is submitted that the credit limit for each bill cycle as per the various bills of the complainant from January, 2016 is as follows:-

Sr. No.	Invoice dated	Credit Limit
1.	23.01.2016	Rs.13,300/-
2.	23.02.2016	Rs.13,300/-
3.	23.03.2016	Rs.7,500/-
4.	23.04.2016	Rs.10,500/-
5.	23.05.2016	Rs.10,500/-
6.	23.06.2016	Rs.10,500/-
7.	23.07.2016	Rs.10,500/-

It is submitted that upon nearing the credit limit, the Ops informed the complainant through SMSs that she was nearing her credit limit and requested her to make the payment. It is submitted that upon the complainant failure to make the payment, the Ops sent other message to the complainant intimating her that outgoing calls had been withdrawn and requested her to pay Rs.13,170/- for uninterrupted services. The Ops again sent messages to the complainant and requested her to make the payment of Rs.37,208/- to restore the same. It is submitted that the similar messages were also sent to the complainant in the month of July, before the temporary disconnection of the number and the same was disconnected on 14.07.2016. It is submitted that the number of the complainant was permanently disconnected on 13.09.2016 due to non-payment of dues of Rs.40,101.59 despite various reminders by the Ops. It is submitted that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum as the monthly charges of the complainant were less than Rs.2000/- but from the statement of account for the period from 30.04.2003 to 25.12.2016 clearly showed that the bills of the complainant have many times exceeded Rs.2000/-. It is denied that there was no network in the phone in USA whereas she had been making and receiving calls from same handset that was used by her throughout in India and abroad. It is submitted that the complainant was duly intimated through SMSs about the outstanding dues from time to time. It is submitted that the complainant is not a consumer of Ops as the services of the mobile No.9814744153 was permanently disconnected on 13.09.2016 due to non-payment of outstanding dues whereas the complainant filed the present complaint on 20.09.2016 after the disconnection of services. It is submitted that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action has arisen at Panchkula and the disputed bill had been issued from Mohali and the services have also been provided either from Mohali or by the International Operators. It is submitted that the Op NO.1 also served a legal notice to the complainant for the recovery of the outstanding dues. It is submitted that the complaint C1-69521313979 dated 20.07.2016 could not be resolved due to incomplete information and the complainant was duly intimated of the same. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3. The complainant tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-11 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully & minutely.
5. It is apparent from a conjunctive perusal of the pleadings made by the parties that the determination of the complaint can come about on a finding about whether the relevant user in roaming was made by the complainant while in the indicated foreign country or not. The complainant denied having made the relevant calls while concededly being abroad; while the contrary is averred by the Ops.
6. The Ops have made the relevant called-up numbers available. It is not the averment of the complainant that she is not in the know of that number. All that she has averred is that the recepients of those calls have denied having received those calls. It is further averred in the complaint that “The complainant can furnish affidavit if Hon’ble Court so requires of those who received the said defaming calls from Idea”.
7. A party which make a grievance must decide, on its own, about what evidence to adduce in support of the averments made in the course of the complaint. It is neither here nor there for the complainant to leave it to the Forum to grant a direction in the context. The ‘offer’ made by the complainant does not buttress the case of the complainant in any manner.
8. It is also pertinent to point out that there is a precise averment made by the Ops that “in the case of International roaming, the customer does not avail the services on the network of IDEA but of those foreign/international telecom service providers with whom the opposite party no.1 has roaming tie-ups all across the world. In the instant case too, the complainant had gone to New York and availed of the services of the Telecom Services Providers namely Great Britain, SINGUL USACG and UK during her travel abroad. The bill generated is purely on the basis of usage of the customer as provided by the aforesaid operators”.

The averment aforementioned has not been controverted by the complainant by filing a counter-affidavit. The version adduced by the Ops deserves to be validated due to the averred intervention of the international service providers, a third independent party. It is, thus, not a case where the Ops provided any services at their own level. The intervention of a third party would buttress the plea of the Ops to an incontrovertible extent.

9. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no force in the grievance made by the complainant. The complainant shall stand rejected accordingly.
10.  A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

12.05.2017 JAGMOHAN SINGH     ANITA KAPOOR    DHARAM PAL

                      MEMBER                       MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                               

                                                          ANITA KAPOOR 

                                                          MEMBER