Punjab

Sangrur

CC/23/2018

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajvir Singh Grewal

02 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

 

                                                Complaint No.    23

                                                Instituted on:      18.01.2018

                                                Decided on:       02.07.2018

 

Mandeep Singh son of Sh. Ujaggar Singh Chahal, resident of H.NO.745, Krishna Colony, Ward No.7, Near Ha Da Nahra Gurudwara Sahib, Malerkotla, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Idea Cellular Limited, Suman Tower, Plot No.18, Sector 11, Gandhinagar (Gujarat) through its Managing Director.

2.     Idea Communication Limited, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-7, SAS Nagar, Mohali-160066 through its Regional Manager.

3.     Golden Gift House, Near Multani Chowk, College Road, Malerkotla, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Proprietor.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant    :       Shri R.S.Grewal, Adv.

For opposite party 1&2:      Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate.

For opposite party No.3:     Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Mandeep Singh,  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 he obtained one mobile connection of Ops number 1 and 2 bearing number 87250-53868 solely for internet purposes under SMART WI-FI INTERNET HUB through OP number 3.  Further case of the complainant is that he received a bill dated 26.6.2017 for Rs.397.87 which was duly paid.  But the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bills dated 26.7.2017 for Rs.587.87 wherein an amount of Rs.150/- have been added on account of VAS chares, whereas the complainant never requested for VAS service, as such the complainant paid only an amount of Rs.400/- on account of internet facility and reused to pay Rs.150/- on account of VAS charges.  Thereafter again he received another bill dated 26.8.2017 for Rs.708.37, bill dated 26.10.2017 for Rs.473.11, bill dated 26.11.2017 for Rs.593.11, bill dated 26.12.2017 for Rs.1065.11, as such, the case of the complainant is that the OPs have charges the excess amount as detailed above.  Though the complainant requested the Ops to withdraw the excess amount from the bills, but nothing happened.  Thus, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed not to raise illegal demands and to refund the amount to the complainant and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs number 1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint, that the complaint is vexatious, baseless and without any basis, that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint, that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.  Further it is stated that the complainant on 22.6.2017 requested for a subscription service namely ‘Celeb Diary’ and was charged Rs.75/- for the same. The similar service again remained in service as such the amount was accordingly charged. On merits, it is stated that the connection in question was issued to the complainant.  But, it is stated that on 22.6.2017 the complainant requested for a subscription service namely, ‘Celeb Diary’ and was charged Rs.75/- for the same and the said charges were duly reflected in the bill dated 22.6.2017 which have not been disputed by the complainant. It has been averred that all the bills have been issued legally and there is nothing illegal demand. Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             Record shows that the OP number 3 was proceeded against exparte.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OPs-1&2/1 affidavit along with the copies of Annexure Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining one mobile connection bearing number 87250-53868 of OPs number 1 and 2 through OP number 3 and the connection was solely internet purposes under SMART WI-FI INTERNET HUB under which the complainant was liable to pay an amount of Rs.398.87 on monthly basis, but the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs are charging the excess amount to the tune of Rs.150/- on account of VAS services on monthly basis and other charges in the bills dated 26.7.2017, 26.8.2017, 26.10.2017, 26.11.2017 and 26.12.2017, which are said to be wrong and illegal.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the bills have been rightly issued to the complainant, as the complainant used ‘Celeb Diary’ service, as such the charges on that count have been added in the bills dated 26.7.2017, 26.8.2017, 26.10.2017, 26.11.2017 and 26.12.2017.  But, we are unable to go with such a contention of the learned counsel for the OPs as the OPs number 1 and 2 have nothing produced on record to show that the complainant ever requested the Ops to provide ‘Celeb Diary’ service.  We have also perused the copies of the mobile bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 and found that the Ops number 1 and 2 should charge only Rs.398.87 only as charged in the first bill Ex.C-2.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops number 1 and 2 that why they added the excess amount in the bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7 on account of ‘Celeb Diary’.  As such, we feel that ends of justice would be met, if the OPs number 1 and 2 are directed to refund to the complainant the excess amount so charged from the complainant in the bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7 than Rs.398.87. 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops number 1 and 2 to refund to the complainant the excess amount so charged from the complainant in the bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7 than Rs.398.87.  We further direct the Ops number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a  period of sixty days of its communication.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 2, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member