Sh.Malvinder Singh, Aged around 44 years, S/o Harcharan Singh, R/o H.No.239, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh

                                                                                                .…Appellant

                                                Vs.

1]  Local Office ; Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.45, Apex Motors, first Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh 160002 through its M.D.

            New Address:- E-256, 2nd floor, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII-B, Near Quark city, SAS Nagar, Mohali 16005 Punjab.

2]  The Managing Director, Matrix Cellular (International) Service Pvt. Ltd. 7, Khullar Farms, Mandi Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi 110030

                                                                                                …. Respondents

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, (Retd.) PRESIDENT

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:      Ameet Awasthi, Advocate for the appellant.\

                        Sh. Vikas Gupta, Adv. for the respondents.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

            This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 8.11.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed  the complaint.

2                 Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant had travelled overseas to Europe in June, 2010 for a holiday.  It was stated that the complainant took a Matix Mobile connection, being economical, as pictured by an Executive of   the Opposite Parties as well as through pamphlets, thereby offering a Data Plan.  It was further stated that when complainant returned to India, he was shocked to receive highly inflated bills for a total sum of Rs.84,757.01, for usage of internet for only 20 days travel.  It was further stated that the complainant has been using the internet for the last so many years, but never received such inflated bills.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties cleverly gave the details as to when the internet was switched on and not when it was switched off, so that they could bill a customer at free will. However, the log/switch on and log/switch off the internet was recorded.  It was further sated that there was a policy in Europe of ‘DATA ROAMIN SPEND CAP IN EUROPE’ for customers traveling abroad, to have a monthly data spend, so that the customer did not exceed or spend what he opted for.  It was further stated that the   Opposite Parties deducted the charges, at their will, without the consent of the complainant, much beyond what was subscribed.  It was further stated that the matter was taken up with the   Opposite Parties, but in vain.  It was further stated that the complainant sent a legal notice, but to no avail.  It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the   Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. Hence the complaint was filed.

3              In their joint reply, the Opposite Parties, stated that  the complainant hired one International SIM Card for internet usage from the Opposite Parties, and signed the Customer Agreement Form & Tariff Plan as also provided all relevant, documents, as per the Company policy. It was admitted that the bills placed, on record, by the complainant were issued by the   Opposite Parties’.  It was further stated that total eight bills were generated by the   Opposite Parties, as per the usage of the complainant, as well as ledger account, maintained by them  (Opposite Parties).  It was further stated that the complainant was clarified that the bills were according to the agreed tariff plan, between the parties, and, as per the usage, done by him.  It was further stated that the documents shown in Ann.C-9 did not belong to the   Opposite Parties.  The complainant hired International Connection after categorically satisfied by him terms & conditions of the   Opposite Parties and the agreed tariff plan.  It was further stated that the  Opposite Parties raised the bills against the complainant as per the usage.  All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency, in service, on the part of the  Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

4              The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5              After hearing the complainant in person, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order

6              Aggrieved by the order, passed by the District Forum, the appellant/complainant, has filed the instant appeal. 

7              We have heard Counsel for the parties, and, have perused the record, carefully.

8              The Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order of the District Forum, is liable to be set aside, as it did not appreciate the documentary evidence led by the appellant/complainant. It was further submitted that the District Forum totally ignored the fact mentioned in para Nos.6&7 of the complaint, duly supported by the documentary evidence i.e.  bills Ex. C-4 to C-6. It was further stated that the appellant had gone to Europe for about 20 days and his  stay in Europe was about 17/18 days. The appellant just used to switch on his laptop, to check his e-mails, and then switched the laptop (internet connection) of as and when he was not in his hotel which had wifi connection. He further submitted that the appellant was astonished to receive the inflated bills Ex.C-2 and C-3, for a brief period of stay of about 17-18 days, in Europe, for a sum of Rs.85,000/- just for checking his emails and nothing was being downloaded.  It was further submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact which was supported by documentary evidence, that the standard industry practice was that the consumers are given MB Data Package after obtaining their consent, if they exceed certain limit and this practice is followed in European countries also. It was further stated that there was deficiency on the part of the   Opposite Parties, and the order of the District Forum being illegal is liable to be set aside.

9              On the other hand the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the order of the District Forum is just and fair and requires no interference. It was further submitted that even otherwise the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Fora  as special remedy of arbitration under Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act, was provided.

10        The core question, that arises for consideration, is as to whether the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint or not.  The dispute involved, in the present case, is regarding the inflated bill raised by the  Opposite Parties’ i.e. Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.. The answer to this question is a big no.  In General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan & anr,(2009)8SCC481 and  Prakash Verma Vs Idea Cellular Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 24577 of 2010 decided on 1.10.2010 the principle of law laid down was that Consumer Fora had no  jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon any dispute, between the subscriber and the Telegraph Authority, and the same can only be decided by the Arbitrator as provided under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. In Lokesh Parashar Vs. M/s Ida Cellular Ltd. and another (Revision Petition No.3780 of 2011) decided on 20.4.2012,  by placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, the National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition holding that Consumer complaint, in such like matters before the Consumer Foras was not maintainable. However, the appellant/complainant submitted that the Consumer Fora had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of JK Mittal and Union of India & Ors W.P.(C) 8285/2010 & C.M. No. 21319/2010 decided on 6.2.1012 . The principle of law laid down in J.K. Mittal’s case (supra ), decided by the Delhi High Court, being contrary to the principle of law laid down in General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan & anr (supra) and  Prakash Verma Vs Idea Cellular Ltd. & Anr. (supra).  decided by the Apex Court, shall not hold the field . Thus, in view of the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court as also by the National Commission in the aforesaid cases, it is held that complaint before the Consumer Forum was not maintainable and the same was liable to be dismissed, on this ground alone. The order of the District Forum is upheld, but for different reasons, stated above.

11         In view of the above we find no merit, in the appeal and hence the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

12         Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.