Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/85

SHAM SUNDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

INCHARGE IDEA CELLULAR LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

05 Sep 2017

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        85         

Date of Institution :  17.03.2017

            Date of Decision :      5.09.2017

Sham Sunder  age about 31 years, s/o Sudarshan Kumar r/o # B-9-403, Near Sanjay Flour Mill, Factory Road, Surgapuri, Kotkapura.

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Idea Cellular Limited, Kotkapura, Railway Road through its Incharge.
2. Idea Cellular Limited, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase VII, Mohali 16005 through its MD.

  ........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs sending wrong exorbitant bill and for disconnecting his mobile connection and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having mobile connection bearing no.90418-06199 issued by Tata Telecom, which was further got ported by complainant with OPs. It is submitted that in November, 2016, Ops launched a scheme vide which complainant was to pay Rs.1500/-as one time charges in lieu of 5 GB data on free of cost for the first month and thereafter, complainant was to pay Rs.250/-per month for 5 GB internet data services and Rs.225/-as monthly rent for talk time for one year and complainant accepted the scheme. In December, 2016, OPs sent a bill for Rs.2,675/-, which was duly paid by complainant and then, in January, 2017 OPs again issued bill for Rs.2,049/-. Complainant approached OPs and requested them to withdraw the charges of Rs.1500/-, which have already been paid by complainant to them as one time charges. He requested them to get deposited Rs.250/-for monthly rent, but they did not accept his request and instead of withdrawing the unlawful charges of Rs.1500/-, they disconnected the connection of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses and to correct the bill sent by them in January, 2017. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                    Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21.03.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                                On receipt of the notice, OPs  filed reply taking preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable as it is filed on false and frivolous facts and it is not filed under any provision of Consumer Protection Act. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and present complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed. Complainant is not entitled to relief as sought by him. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and admitted before the Forum that bill for January, 2017 for Rs.2,049/-was sent by them. It is also admitted that complainant requested for activation of Long Term Validity Plan of Rs.1500/-on 30.11.2016. it is averred that vide bill dated 1.01.2017, complainant was charged Rs.1500/- for the billing cycle 1.12.2016 to 31.12.2016 for using internet facility as complainant used 10.55 GB data under the plan, other benefits and internet facility and he was not charged for this. It is further averred that as per plan, OPs have provided best facilities to complainant and they have also redressed the grievance of complainant as his complaint number with Communication ID-81388740051 was duly reverted by means of telephonic call on 2.01.2017 from the number 98919-05970. It is  totally denied that they ever disconnected the mobile connection of complainant and asserted that despite sending SMS for making payment to avoid being barred, complainant did not pay the bill and therefore, number of complainant was temporarily disconnected on 2.02.2017 and permanently on 3.04.2017 and during pendency of complainant, his connection was activated.  It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                                           Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 4 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                Ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Manoj Madan as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-16 and then, closed the evidence.

 7                                                       We have carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as OPs.

8                                                      Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant is having mobile connection bearing no.90418-06199 issued by Tata Telecom, which was further got ported by complainant with OPs. It is submitted that in November, 2016, Ops launched a scheme vide which complainant was to pay Rs.1500/-as one time charges in lieu of 5 GB data on free of cost for the first month and thereafter, complainant was to pay Rs.250/-per month for 5 GB internet data services and Rs.225/-as monthly rent for talk time for one year and complainant accepted the scheme. In December, 2016, OPs sent a bill for Rs.2,675/-, which was duly paid by complainant and then, in January, 2017 OPs again issued bill for Rs.2,049/-. Complainant approached OPs and requested them to withdraw the charges of Rs.1500/-, which have already been paid by him as one time charges. He requested them to get deposited Rs.250/-for monthly rent, but they did not accept his request and instead of withdrawing the unlawful charges of Rs.1500/-, they disconnected the connection of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the complaint with directions to OPs to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses and to correct the bill sent by them in January, 2017.

9                                                      To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that present complaint is not maintainable as it is filed on false and frivolous facts and it is not filed under any provision of Consumer Protection Act. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and present complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed. Complainant is not entitled to relief as sought by him. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and admitted before the Forum that bill for January, 2017 for Rs.2,049/-was sent by them. It is also admitted that complainant requested for activation of Long Term Validity Plan of Rs.1500/-on 30.11.2016. it is averred that vide bill dated 1.01.2017, complainant was charged Rs.1500/- for the billing cycle 1.12.2016 to 31.12.2016 for using internet facility as complainant used 10.55 GB data under the plan, other benefits and internet facility and he was not charged for this. It is further averred that as per plan, OPs have provided best facilities to complainant and they have also redressed the grievance of complainant as his complaint number with Communication ID-81388740051 was duly reverted by means of telephonic call on 2.01.2017 from the number 98919-05970. It is  totally denied that they ever disconnected the mobile connection of complainant and asserted that despite sending SMS for making payment to avoid being barred, complainant did not pay the bill and therefore, number of complainant was temporarily disconnected on 2.02.2017 and permanently on 3.04.2017 and during pendency of complainant, his connection was activated.  It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                                 The case of complainant is that complainant opted the scheme launched by Ops in November, 2016 and paid Rs.1500/-as one time charges in lieu of 5 GB data on free of cost for the first month. As per scheme, complainant was to pay Rs.250/-per month for 5 GB internet data services and Rs.225/-as monthly rent for talk time for one year and complainant. In December, 2016, OPs sent a bill for Rs.2,675/-, which includes Rs.1500/-as one time charges and was duly paid by complainant and then, in January, 2017 OPs again issued bill for Rs.2,049/-. In this bill also Rs.1500/-were demanded by OPs as one time charges again. Complainant requested them to withdraw the charges of Rs.1500/-, which have already been paid by him as one time charges and requested them to get deposited Rs.250/-for monthly rent, but they did not accept his request and instead of withdrawing the unlawful charges of Rs.1500, OPs disconnected his mobile  connection, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect but admitted before the Forum that they sent bills in questions to complainant.

11                                      To prove his case, complainant has relied upon document Ex C-2 that proves the pleading of complainant that he paid Rs.2680/- for accepting the scheme launched by OPs and it includes Rs.1500/-as one time settlement charges for 5 GB data. Ex C-4 is bill dated 1.01.2017 issued by OPs for Rs.2049.32, which is challenged by complainant. on the face of it this bills shows that Rs.1500/-are again added as one time settlement charges for availing 5 GB data. Through his affidavit Ex C-1 he has reiterated his grievance.

12                                        From the careful perusal of evidence and record placed on file, it is clear and admitted by OPs the complainant is their consumer and he accepted the scheme launched by them. It is transpired that bill issued in December, 2016 for Rs.2680/- contains one time settlement charges for using 5GB data and bill issued in January, 2017 for Rs.2049.32 also reveals Rs.1500/-as one time settlement charges for availing 5GB internet data. As per scheme of OPs, they should have charged Rs.1500/-to complainant only once, but they charged this amount of Rs.1500/-twice to complainant, which is wrong on their part. Failure on the part of Ops to withdraw their illegal demand for Rs.1500/-despite repeated requests by complainant amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice.

13                                           In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings and evidence led by complainant and it is found that complainant has succeeded in proving his case. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed and OPs are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.1500/-raised by them vide bill for January, 2017 and are restrained from disconnecting the connection of complainant on false grounds and are ordered to adjust the amount of Rs.1000/-already deposited by complainant in compliance of order dated 21.03.2017 of this Forum in subsequent bills. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 5.09.2017

Member                President                                          (P Singla)            (Ajit Aggarwal)