Haryana

Ambala

CC/207/2019

Shashi Kant - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Collection Center - Opp.Party(s)

Sourabh Ahuja

07 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case no. :  207 of  2019.

                                                          Date of Institution :   04.07.2019.

                                                          Date of decision     :   07.03.2022.

 

Shashi Kant Prop. Dreams Designer, Banso Wala Chowk, Nadi Mohalla, Ambala City, Distt. Ambala (Haryana)

          ……. Complainant.

 

                                                Versus

 

1. IDEA Collection Center, IDEA Office, Behind City Media, Near Manav Chowk, Ambala City, Distt. Ambala (Haryana) through its Executive/Manager.
2. IDEA Cellular Services, Through its Manager # D-8, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, Peraghari, New Delhi-110041.

                                                                                  ….…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

                            

Present:       Shri Sourabh Ahuja, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   OP No.1, proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.08.2019

                   Shri Pawan Kumar Goel, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To activate the number of the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.21,000/- ,as litigation expenses.
4.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

2.       Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a well known Architect of Ambala City. In the year 1996, he had taken a post paid connection bearing No.9812032699, from the OPs and he widely circulated the said number to his customers. On 06.12.2018, OPs stopped providing services without any reason and without informing the complainant. Complainant immediately contacted the office of OP No.1 and requested to start the service of his phone number, (Mb. No.9812032699), but it did not given any heed to his genuine request. He asked about the detail of his mobile number but the employee of the OP No.1, informed the complainant that the bill of his phone will be generated on 14.12.2018 and after that complainant came to know about the reason of deactivation of services by the company.  On 14.12.2018, complainant came to know that bill amount of Rs.8500/-, was pending towards the complainant whereas he was usually getting the bill between Rs.345/- to Rs.550/-. After receiving the detailed bill, complainant noticed that the most of the dialled number were of different countries, whereas ISD services were not activated. The time duration of the calls was itself contradictory, the details of the phone number was just added to increase the bill amount. On 18.01.2019, the executive of the company called the complainant and asked him for settlement and on his assurance complainant paid Rs.3500/- to the OPs. The said executive, namely Gaurav told the complainant that his phone number will be activated within two hours. But OPs did not activate the phone number and complainant called Mr. Gaurav, who informed that payment was given to the office executive namely Abhishek Dhiman (Mb. No.9813090853). Complainant called Mr. Abhishek Dhiman, who informed the complainant that he had updated the status of payment on 24.01.2019 and number will be activated on 25.01.2019. On 25.01.2019, instead of activating the number, the OPs informed that his phone will be activated on deposit of the full amount of Rs.8500/-.  The said act of the OPs tantamounts to deficiency in service. Hence the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1, before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.08.2019.

4.                Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written version and has raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction etc. The present dispute ought to be referred for arbitration in terms of the provision of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.  On merits, it is stated that the invoices raised were for the usage of two connection i.e post paid mobile connection bearing Nos. 9812032699 and 7056732699. The invoices raised for the services utilised, were for two connections, whereas complainant has mislead this Hon’ble Commission by portraying that if only one connection was being used. The services of the complainant were suspended for non-payment of the due charges. The answering OPs are duly empowered and can exercise their authority under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules 1951, in regard to disconnection of outgoing facility of the complainant for non-payment of the dues. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for lack of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint filed by the complainant against it with costs.

5.                 Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2, tendered affidavit of Shri Manoj Madan, General Manager-Legal (PUH Cluster), Authorised Signatory, Vodafone Idea Limited, Plot No.C-105, Phase No.VII, Industrial Focal Point, Mohali-160055 (Punjab),  as Annexure OP-A alongwith document Annexure OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.2.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.2 and carefully gone through the case file.

7.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the OP No.2, has raised the objection that the present complaint is not maintainable, before this Hon’ble Commission and the dispute ought to be referred to the arbitrator in terms of the provisions of the Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that OPs are not a telegraph authority, for the purpose of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. OPs by raising the inflated bill of Rs.8500/-, the OPs have committed deficiency in service thus, the present complaint is maintainable before this Commission. It may be stated here that in the case of Vodafona Idea Cellular Limited Vs. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal 2022, Live Law (SC), 221, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that-Existence of an arbitral remedy available under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, will not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum- it would be open to a consumer to opt for the remedy of arbitration but there is no compulsion in law to do so and it would be open to a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies which are provided under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, now replaced by the Act of 2019. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vodafona Idea Cellular Limited Vs. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal (supra), the present complaint is maintainable before this Commission. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the OPs is not sustainable, hence, rejected.

8.                On merits, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that  the complainant had taken a post paid mobile connection from the OPs and he was usually getting the monthly bill, between Rs.345/- to Rs.550/-. However, OPs issued the inflated bill dated 14.01.2019, of Rs.8025.36, Annexure C-2. After receiving the said bill, complainant obtained the call detail from the OPs. From the perusal of the said call detail annexed along with the bill, it is found that at serial No.148, on 05.01.2019, at 02.08.53, there was an ISD call on mobile number 05330011468, for the duration of 45.55 minutes and at the serial number 149, on the same date at 02.01.02, there was a call, on the same number, for the duration of 06.51 minutes.  No explanation whatsoever has been given by the OPs as to how it is possible. Facing with this situation, we are of the view that there is some discrepancy in the call detail. Be that as it may, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:

          i)  To withdraw bill dated 14.01.2019 and issue an amended bill as per the     actual usage, within a week from the date of receipt of the certified copy       of this order and activate the mobile number of the complainant       immediately, after receiving the due payment from the complainant.

          ii) To pay Rs.2,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical      harassment suffered by the complainant.

          iii) To pay Rs.2,000/-, as litigation expenses.

 

           Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced on :07.03.2022.

 

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member                       President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:       Shri Sourabh Ahuja, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   OP No.1, proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.08.2019

                   Shri Pawan Kumar Goel, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

 

Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been allowed. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

Announced on :07.03.2022.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President