Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/460

Manpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Kumar Adv.

06 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 460 of 15.06.2016

Date of Decision            :   06.04.2017 

 

Manpreet Singh Mann s/o Harjinder Singh r/o Ward No.1, Near Gurudwara Sahib, Village Rahaun, P.O.Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, Punjab.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

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

2.M/s Guru Kirpa, Kang Market, Near HDFC Bank, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, (PB.) through its Owner, Raminder Singh Sodhi.

 

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant            :          Sh.Munish Kumar, Advocate

For OP1                         :          Sh.Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Ex-parte.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Op1 is engaged in the business of Cellular Network Services apart from the other activities. Complainant was the regular prepaid customer of OP1, due to availing of service with respect to Mobile No.98880-11011. In the month of April 2016, the complainant got promotional calls from +91-95929-17990 during working hours at Civil Courts. The billing plan was disclosed by Op1 from its office situate at Mohali. As per that discussion, the plan was of Rs.399/- per month. This plan     meant for providing of 600 free minutes calls to any network. Besides, 1.5 GB mobile data and 3G/4G services were to be made available. Services of 100 SMS and 600 free minutes were to be provided. Charges for Idea to Idea calls were of 20 paise per call, but these charges for idea to other network were at rate of 30 paise per call. Complainant purchased the billing connection from OP2, the sales person. Vide bill dated 26.5.2016, amount of Rs.1052.76P were sought to be charged. Then the complainant got knowledge about call charges and the plan mentioned in the bill. Complainant found that amounts charged were different than those of the disclosed to him and agreed upon by him. Flat 30 paise per call was charged by OP1 and 1GB data alone was provided instead of 1.5GB data. Immediately, the complainant contacted Op2 for disclosing him about the problem of excess charging, but all claims of the complainant were flatly refused. By pleading adoption of unfair trade practice, prayer made for directing Ops to pay Rs.3 lac with interest, but Rs.1 lac on account of humiliation and harassment faced by him. Litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/- more claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OP1, it is pleaded that OP1 has been unnecessarily dragged in the litigation, despite the fact that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1. Complaint alleged to be false and frivolous, due to    which, same merits dismissal with special costs of Rs.10,000/-. It is claimed that the complainant has misused the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) because he has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. Complainant choose to migrate from prepaid to a postpaid mobile connection under the monthly rental plan of Rs.399/-. At the time of purchase, the complainant was disclosed that plan/scheme of postpaid has rent of Rs.399/- per month, in which, following benefits will be provided:-

TM Code	Bill Plan Name	Bill Plan Number	Usage Discount	Roaming	SMS Discount	GPRS Discount	Rental
11347	3G Combo 399 Plan NBS	PB-BP-0415	600 Local+STD Minutes		100 L+N SMS	1 GB 3G Data	399

 

Local Idea	Local Other	Local Fixed	STD Idea	STD other	STD Fixed	SMS Local	SMS STD	SMS ISD
0.35	0.35	0.35	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.50	0.50	5

  

Complainant availed services of the scheme, but now has concocted a false story. Complainant after signing and accepting the Tariff plan and Supplementary Services Form,  now has raised dispute as an afterthought. No plan/scheme mentioned in the complaint ever floated by OP1. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that the bill was raised as per plan and as per consumption made by the complainant.

3.                OP2 is ex-parte in this case.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Mark-A and thereafter, closed the evidence through counsel.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Manoj Madan, authorized signatory of OP1 along with documents Annexure-A and then closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

7.                Op1 has produced on record Customer Application Form along with copy of Aadhar Card and Tariff Plan and Supplementary Services Form as well as application for migration of prepaid to postpaid for arguing that Tariff rates were duly disclosed to the complainant at the time of filling of the application form by him. All these documents bear the signatures of complainant and as such, it is vehemently contended that claim of the complainant is false regarding charging of excessive amount per call. However, counsel for complainant vehemently contends that signatures on all these documents of the complainant are forged. Whether or not these documents are forged, qua that elaborate evidence required and as such, the said question can be got determined by the complainant from the competent civil court or from the competent criminal court only. It is well settled that proceedings of this Forum are summary in nature and this Forum not to adjudicate the question of fraud or of forgery of signatures, particularly when such question can be decided on appreciation of elaborate evidence required to be adduced by the parties. Moreover, no plea taken in the complaint regarding forgery of signatures of the complainant on produced documents by OP1. So, plea of forgery of signatures of the complainant on the documents is an afterthought and that is not tenable in the summary proceedings.

8.                After going through Tariff Plan and Supplementary Services Form, it is made out that the complainant was made known as if per call local charges is 0.35 paise and those of STD are 0.45 paise. SMS charges mentioned as 0.50 paise in this Tariff Plan and Supplementary Services Form. So, this documentary evidence produced by OP1 establishes that as per plan, the above said charges of 0.35 paise or 0.45 paise are chargeable as claimed by OP1. No document produced by the complainant to establish that charges mentioned by OP1 are excessive. Rather, after arrival of the contract, documents of application form, Tariff Plan and supplementary services form extra were duly submitted by the complainant and now the complainant claiming liability other than the one stipulated through these documents. However, the complainant claiming liability in abeyance to the terms and conditions of the Tariff Plan rates and as such, certainly the claim of the complainant is not sustainable. Being so, deficiency in service on the part of Ops not inferable and nor the act of charging of above pointed rates, amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice.

9.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                        (G.K. Dhir)

               Member                                                                 President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:06.04.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.