DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.228 of 2016
Date of institution: 22.04.2016 Date of decision : 22.05.2017
Rajbir Singh Gulati son of late Mohinder Singh Gulati, resident of House No.1083, Sector 69, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
IDEA – Punjab, having its office at C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali, District SAS Nagar, through its Regional Manager/Manager.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
Ms. Rameet Bakshi, counsel for the OP.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Rajbir Singh Gulati has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant who is senior citizen aged about 72 years had got telephone connection from the OP in the year 2000 for his personal usage. The complainant never defaulted in payment of bills. On 09.12.2015, 10.12.2015 and 11.12.2015 the mobile phone of the complainant started automatically dialing numbers to various foreign countries. The complainant was informed by the OP vide SMS that due to exhausting of security amount of the complainant; his outgoing call facility was barred. The complainant was also verbally told by the executives of the OP that their system showed that the amount has been exhausted. The complainant was also told that an amount of Rs.4381.50 had been used for these international calls. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 18.12.2015 to the OP which was not replied to by the OP. To keep his SIM card in service, the complainant made the payment under protest on 28.01.2016. No relative of the complainant is living in the countries to which the calls have been made from his number. The charges of these calls were levied not on account of usage by the complainant but due to poor maintenance of services by the OP which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund him Rs.4,381.50 alongwith interest@ 18% per annum; to pay him Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension and agony and Rs.10,000/- as legal expenses.
3. Upon notice the OP caused appearance and filed written statement in which it took preliminary objections that the complainant is trying to mislead the Forum as he himself used the ISD facility uninterruptedly and has now chosen to file this frivolous complaint. The complainant made an ISD call on 30.11.2015 to No.995514685057 for duration of 41.08 minutes and was charged Rs.714/- vide bill dated 08.12.2015. The bill was paid by the complainant on 11.12.2015 without disputing the same. The complainant further made two ISD calls on 10.12.2015 to No.2522230037 and 2522230076 and was charged for Rs.4380/- for these calls vide bill dated 08.01.2016. The International Mobile Equipments Identity Number and the International Mobile Subscriber Identity number remains the same throughout irrespective of the fact that the calls made by the complainant are local/STD/ISD which proves that the ISD calls have been made through the same handset of the complainant. No evidence has been placed on record by the complainant that he has been wrongly billed for the services used by him. In the screen shots attached by the complainant there is no mention of mobile number and the handset from which these screen shots have been taken. The exact date of these screen shots is not clear. The e-mail dated 12.12.2015 sent by the complainant was duly replied to on 14.12.2015 and the complainant was requested to contact his handset operator to reset his mobile and this fact has been concealed by the complainant. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant had not deposited any cash security amount but the security was in the form of a bank lien to the tune of Rs.3,000/- only and the same was shown in the system when the complainant became customer of the OP on 25.06.2001. The OP only demanded the amount of the bill which was raised by the system according to usage of the services by the complainant. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of bill Ex.C-1; legal notice Ex.C-2; letter dated 28.01.2016 Ex.C-3 and letters Ex.C-4 and C-5. In rebuttal, the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri Manoj Madan, its authorised signatory Ex.OP-1/1; copies of Customer Application Form Ex.OP-1; bills Ex.OP-2; call detail records Ex.OP-3; e-mails sent by the complainant Ex.OP-4; e-mails sent by the OP Ex.OP-5, email sent by the complainant Ex.OP-6 and E-mail of the OP-7.
5. The complainant has argued that he has no relative living in the countries where the calls have been made from his mobile phone. The mobile phone of the complainant was hacked 203 times out of which two calls were matured which were charged to the account of the complainant. The complainant has argued that it is the duty of the OP to maintain a risk free, virus fee, Trojan horses free network/internet services. The complainant has been forced to pay for these calls due to fault of the OP. Thus, the complainant has argued that the complaint may be allowed and the amount of the charges of the calls may be got refunded alongwith compensation for harassment, mental agony and legal expenses.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the OP has argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant himself admitted that his mobile started automatically dialing numbers in various countries. She has further argued that the OP vide e-mail dated 14.12.2015 requested the complainant to contact his handset operator to reset his mobile. Learned counsel for the OP has relied upon decision of Hon’ble State Commission Punjab in First Appeal No.976 of 2015 titled as S.C. Khanna Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., decided on 02.05.2016. Lastly, the counsel for the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
7. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written as well as oral arguments of the parties. It is a matter of common knowledge that the mobile companies are having computerized systems and all the details of the calls being made or received from a particular mobile number are entered therein. The query of the complainant vide e-mail dated 12.12.2015 Ex.OP-4 was duly replied by the OP through e-mail dated 14.12.2015 Ex.OP-5 that regarding ISD call charges and mobile hacking, kindly contact the handset operator to reset the mobile phone. The OP again vide e-mail dated 29.01.2016 Ex.OP-7 in response to e-mail dated 27.01.2016 Ex.OP-6 of the complainant asked him to contact the handset operator to reset his mobile. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP regarding hacking of his mobile phone. The decision of the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab in S.C. Khanna Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (supra) relied up by the counsel for the OP is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussions, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 10.05.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 22.05.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
