Delhi

StateCommission

A/629/2017

SANJEEV GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MATRIX CELLULAR (INTERNATIONAL) SERVICE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jul 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :19.07.2019

Date of order : 24.07.2019

FIRST APPEAL NO.629/2017

In the matter of:

 

Sanjeev Goyal,

S/o. Shri Tarlochan Lal,

R/o. A-1/703, Milan Vihar Apartment,

Patpar Gunj,

New Delhi-110092.……Appellant

 

Versus

 

Matrix Cellular (International) Service Ltd.,

7 Khullar Farms,

Mandi Road,

•  

New Delhi-110030.……Respondent

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. The present appeal  is directed against order dated 09.10.17 passed by District Forum II in CC No.262/15 vide which the complaint of the appellant had been dismissed on the ground that OP/ respondent generated final bill for Rs.240/- which had been paid by the appellant/ complainant. With that the appellant ceased to be a consumer.
2. The plea of the appellant is that he was to visit USA (San Francisco, Las Angles, Las Vegas, Niagra Fall and New York) from 06.07.15 to 24.07.15. He bought a matrix sim 13027532092 from Delhi Airport on 05.07.15 for 10$ post paid monthly plan. The executive of OP kept a Xerox copy of his passport and authorisation on credit card of American Express for bill payment and told that OP’s executive would come to his office after 25.07.15 on return from USA to collect sim and final bill. The executive of OP loaded the sim, switched off the data use and asked the complainant to be careful while using data in USA. The appellant got SMS and mail from OP on 11.07.15 for unbiled usage of Rs.30,926/- for 437 MB of data use. He sent an email to the OP to clarify as to how the amount was calculated as he had turned off his mobile data from the very first day and his mobile was also showing zero data usage. He was using whatsapp only in Wifi area. The OP informed him that it was not able to provide the data to it. He was forced to block his credit card on 13.07.15, new credit card was issued to him on 0-4.08.15. So he was not in a position to use his credit card during stay in USA. On 13.07.15 he informed the OP that he took out sim of the OP out of his handset as it might be used for fraudulent misuse for further false billing.
3. He was surprised to know that his billing was from 7^th June to 6^th July which was not told to him at the time of sale of sim. Had the billing cycle been conveyed to him, he would not have taken that plan. The OP replied by email that no charge would be levied for not returning the sim card. But when he specifically asked for clarification of Rs.30,926/-, it was told that sim lost charge of Rs.350/- would not be charged. He had never reported that his sim had been lost. The OP informed by email that there was a change of policy as regard to  collection of sim. After receipt  of final bill of Rs.240/-, complainant wrote letter on 26.08.15 to clarify that the same was final bill and what was the status of Rs.30,926/-, whether the same had been waived off or not. It was replied by the OP on 27.08.15 that there was no such charge of INR  30,000/- for data.
4. The OP/ respondent remained exparte. Appellant filed his own affidavit in exparte evidence. After going through the matthe complaint by simply saying that appellant ceased to be  consumer after paying the final bill of Rs.240/-.
5. Notice of the appeal was sent to respondent which put an appearance through its counsel Shri Shubham Pandey on 11.01.19. It filed a reply raising preliminary objection that appellant had not come with clean hands and suppressed material facts. The massage and bill sent to the appellant on 11.07.15 was alert  of unbilled usage and not final bill. It was an endeavour to keep the appellant informed for his current usage with respect to the above mentioned matrix sim card.
6. During arguments the appellants and urged and rightly so that District Forum did not take notice of email dated 27.08.15 copy of which is at page-58 of the appeal file. This is from respondent to appellant. Its recites that as checked there was no such charge of INR 30000 for data. He was assured that the payment made by him was for full and final bill and no more bill would be generated.
7. If there was no charges for usage of data, there is no reason why the OP/ respondent raised a bill for Rs.30,926/-. Such an unlawful demand is bound to cause mental harassment to a person who is travelling abroad. Things can be understood if the person is in his country and living a normal life. But when traveling abroad, one becomes more sensitive and careful. The appellant had to block his credit card to avoid encashment of the bill by the Op from the credit card. The same deprived the appellant of use of his credit card during his stay in USA. It is matter of common knowledge that one does not carry heavy cash while travelling abroad, so as to ensure safety against loss of theft. More over carriage of huge currency is not permissible also. One prefers to use the credit card which is more convenient.
8. In view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the complaint of the appellant deserves to be allowed. Anyhow the compensation of Rs.10 lakhs sought by him is highly excessive. Keeping in view the amount of the bill raised, it would be appropriate to fix the quantum of compensation at Rs.1 lakh. Accordingly the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and respondent is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the appellant within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.
9. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
10. One copy of the order be sent to District forum for information.
11. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)