BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.81 of 2015

Date of Instt. 03.03.2015

Date of Decision :04.08.2015

S.C.Khanna, W.B.248, Ali Mohalla, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. IDEA, Batra Bros., Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

2. Idea Cellular Ltd, C-105, Phase-VII, Industrial Area, Mohali-160055.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.KK Arora Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that about two years back, complainant was forced to convert payment from prepaid to billing. Once it was done, no bill was sent. For the months of August 2014 and September 2014, complainant received notice of excessive payment. Suspecting foul play, complainant demanded call details which were refused unless Rs.100/- was paid. After checking details, it was found that half calls were bogus and one call was shown of 90 minutes amounting to Rs.135/- of 14.9.2014. Complainant made 10 telephone calls and sent one email which were ignored by opposite party forcing complainant to close phone No.9814728879. On such like averments the complainant has prayed for Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and written reply was filed by opposite party No.2 pleading that the complainant was correctly charged for uninterrupted services availed by him. It is further mentioned that the complainant was charged for calling on number i.e 9717217465 on 15.9.2014 while the complainant was in roaming which is in accordance with the standard roaming tariff. The itemized details of the bills depicting the usage of the services availed by the complainant are annexed. In this regard the answering opposite party has intimated the complainant through email as well but the complainant has deliberately concealed the said fact in the present complaint. Hence, now the complainant can not turn around and state that answering opposite party charged illegally for the calls which were not made by him. It is further submitted that answering opposite party had generated the true and correct itemized computerized bill according to the usage made by the complainant. The usage of the roaming services by the complainant can also be corroborated from the Call Details Record (CDR's) in which the IMEI number of his mobile handset also depicts which establishes that the complainant has availed the roaming services on his mobile connection. It is false and incorrect that the complainant was forced to convert his number from prepaid to postpaid. It is false and incorrect that the answering opposite party has never sent any bill to the complainant rather, the answering opposite party had regularly issued the bills to the complainant. It is false and incorrect that answering opposite party refused to supply copy of the call details/detailed bill to the complainant. The answering opposite party duly replied to the email and calls made by the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant was duly informed through telephonic calls and email sent on 12.11.2014 that the charges has been correctly charged as per the usage made by the complainant and further answering opposite party denied the reversal as the charges being correctly charged. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

6. The main dispute between the parties is regarding the call of 90 minutes in the bill of September 2014 for which Rs.135/- were charged by the opposite party No.2 company. Ex.C1 is copy of the above said bill. The disputed call is shown to have been made on 15.9.2014 while roaming in HP and duration of the said call is mentioned as 89.52 minutes i.e approximately 90 minutes. From the above said bill, it is clear that the mobile phone of the complainant was being used in Himachal Pradesh from 15.9.2014 to 17.9.2014. It is computer generated bill. We have no reliable evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the above said disputed call was not made from the mobile handset of the complainant. In this regard, we have bare affidavit of the complainant. We do not have convincing reason to disbelieve the computerized bill Ex.C1. The complainant has also not filed affidavit of the subscriber of the number called i.e 9717217465 to the effect that no call was received from the mobile of the complainant on his number. The version of the complainant that he was forced to convert his mobile number from prepaid to postpaid can not be accepted. The complainant has now discontinued or closed his mobile number and is no longer consumer of the opposite parties. The version of the complainant that opposite parties did not sent reply to his email is also without any substance as opposite parties have produced copy of email Ex.OP3 vide which reply was sent to the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

7. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

04.08.2015 Member Member President