DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.122/2012

Sh. Aditya Saraf

B-45, Inderpuri, New Delhi                                         ….Complainant

Versus

Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.

Head Office:

7 Khular Farms, Mandi Road,

Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030                                ….Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution        : 28.03.12         Date of Order                :  30.04.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

1. The complainant alongwith his family travelled to Singapore in October, 2011. The complainant availed the services of Matrix Cellular International Services Pvt. Ltd.  hereinafter referred to as OP and purchased two Sim Cards one in his name and the second in the name of his father-in-law which was to be used on the cruise.  
   1. The complainant was apprised of various plans and their consequential benefits. It is averred that on being apprised about additional or value added services like internet etc.  the complainant refused to take those services.  It is averred that the OP clearly mentioned to the complainant that since the complainant did not require any additional services therefore each number the complainant shall be charged Rs.5,000/-; to be paid at the inception and this advance payment shall be adjusted in the final bill amount. OP also informed that the number shall be in activation as per his travel plan and will be deactivated immediately on his return to India. The complainant purchased the two Sim Cards and paid Rs.5,000/- each with mobile No.96510622 & 07924367779. 

1.  It is next stated that after the initial usage of the number purchased in the name of his father-in-law i.e. 0792436779 it suddenly stopped functioning. The complainant informed OP regarding the same but the OP reverted back and informed that SIM Card/mobile number cannot be made functional due to technical error on the part of OP. It was also informed that since the complainant had another SIM Card the same could be used outside Singapore, but roaming rates shall be applicable on the calls made.

1. Therefore, complainant was constrained to use his mobile since the other number had stopped working, his number had to be also used on the cruise. It is reiterated that at no point of time the complainant ever used internet or any other Value Added Services.

1. But to his utter shock and disbelief on his return to India on 14.10.11 the complainant received a bill from OP for a sum of Rs.49,591.72p. Thereafter, upon receiving such an inflated bill the complainant approached the OP to provide him itemized bill. Copy of the itemized bill is placed on record as Annexure A-2.

1. Complainant on receiving the itemized bill noticed that the complainant has been duped/deceived as the bill included levy of internet usage charges, excess bill and was being charged twice for the same call amongst other. It is averred that at the several instances the time of the call and duration did not collaborate with the calls made and received.

1. Thus aggrieved, the complainant prayed for direction to refund the excess billing and to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for harassment and financial loss. Additionally it is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2. OP chose to contest the complaint and submitted that  the complainant after having understood various plans/packages himself according to his need chose two plans and requested the OP to provide two international SIM Cards.
   1. OP has submitted that the complainant’s allegation that the SIM of the mobile number 07924363779 stopped working after initial usage is totally contradictory as it shows from the itemized bill that the above mobile number was properly working and several calls were dialed by the complainant himself during his foreign trip as well as some inter calls were also dialed between both mobiles.
   2.  OP has very categorically denied the contents about the additional services/Value Added Service of the SIM Card. OP submits that the complainant was apprised about the additional services like internet etc. as these services are already activated on the SIM Card and are also mentioned in the Customer Agreement Form which was duly signed and understood by the complainant. Copy of the Customer Agreement Form is placed and tarrif sheet on record as Annexure OP-1 (Colly).
   3. It is next submitted by OP that the security amount of Rs.5,000/- was charged by OP as explained to the complainant and also mentioned in the Customer Agreement Form that the said amount was refundable after 60 days from the date of return of the SIM Card and the payment of dues bills to OP. Further it is submitted that it was explained to the complainant that once a plan is activated in the SIM Card it will continually work, till it is returned to the OP.
   4. As regards the allegations of charges of internet OP submits that these were levied as per the usage by the complainant. As agreed the tariff sheets signed by the complainant in which it was specifically mentioned that GPRS is a pre-activated service.
   5. OP categorically denied that the mobile number 07924363779 stopped working. It is submitted that as per the complainant SIM Card used in the said mobile was purchased with the intention to use it on cruise but on the contrary the complainant purchased the said number with the tariff plan of universal to use it in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand.  It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs and the complainant be directed to pay Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation  for making false allegation against the OP and to direct the complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.

3. Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP reiterating the averments made in the complaint. 
4. Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Chander Shekhar, Executive Legal has been filed on behalf of OP.
5. Both the parties have filed their written arguments. 
6. Arguments of Ld. Counsel of parties are heard and material placed on record is perused carefully.
7. The main issue of contention between the parties is whether OP had excessively charged for the usage of SIM Card by the complainant. Before we go into the merits of the case it is pertinent to read the customer undertaking in the Customer Agreement Form which is reproduced as under:

“Customer undertaking please read carefully before signing:

1. I hereby undertake NOT to use the SIM card in India.

2. I am aware that any usage mode on cruise or outside home country will be on international roaming –charges will be upto USD 10/ min (unless specified in Tariff plan).

3. In the event of loss/misplacement of SIM card/Handset/Datacard, I will intimate Matrix in writing through E-mail at  
   1. Lost Charges – Rs.750/- for SIM card and Rs.5000/- for Handset or Datacard.

    

   2. All calls will be charged till a written confirmation is received by me from Matrix confirming that lost/misplaced has been deactivated.

    

    

   4. I may terminate the connection anytime will be responsible for all the usage charges incurred during the period, monthly rental, or any other charges specified (including any early termination charges in the Tariff Plan selected.

    

   5. I am aware that GPRS may be pre-activated on the SIM card provided; charges are upto USD 20/MB usage.

    

   6. I am aware that Security will be refunded after 60 days from the return of the SIM card.

    

   7. Kindly ask for cash receipt, if paying by cash. Claims without proper cash receipt will not be entertained.”

    

   8. Complainant’s main points of contention are regarding:
   1. Usage of mobile phone on cruise.
   2. Charges on internet facilities available on the phone.
   3. Security amount of Rs.5,000/-.

    

   All these issues stated by the complainant have been duly addressed by the OP in its written statement. Further we believe that the complainant while signing the Customer Agreement Form has read the customer undertaking and signed thereafter. Bare perusal of the undertaking shows that the internet services on the SIM cards was pre-activated. The complainant should not have used the internet if he did not want it to be billed. The complainant has further raised an argument that he has been charged twice for the same call. Point No.4 in the terms and conditions signed by the complainant clearly mentions that call charges will be billed in two parts –one will show an international leg and the other call will show the local leg. The Forum opines that this will account for roaming surcharge and call charges at international rates. For reference the terms and conditions are reproduced below:

   “Terms and conditions

   • The above plan is valid only for use in Singapore. Any usage made outside Singapore is subject to roaming rates, approximately 7.68 SGD/minute; or as applicable by the network.
   • The data/blackberry packs are valid for 30 days only. The same plan would be rolled over in cash if it is not discontinued.
   • These plans are not valid for use, while on a cruise.   Usage during a cruise charged maritime rates and is at the discretion  of the cruise lines.
   • International call charges in Singapore will be reflecting in two parts on the bill. One will show a international leg and the other call will show the local leg.
   • The incoming caller number will be passed on to the customer subject to availability of the same from the other service provider.
   • GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) is pre activated on our SIM card charges are up to 7 SGD/MB; or as applicable by the network.
   • Airtime rates are applicable on all toll free numbers.
   • International roaming rates are inclusive of service tax and surcharge.
   • A 10% surcharge is applicable on the above tariff plan.
   • A 10% surcharge is applicable on the  above tariff plan.

    

   Please note that only an executed contact is binding on the signatories. MATRIX advises any otherwritten or verbal communication regarding terms may not be relied upon by any party. Prior to execution, MATRIX has no financial or other obligations, including costs incurred, with respect to any terms discussed and/or agreed to in principle.

   I have read & understood the above referenced tariff and terms and conditions, and those mentioned on the Customer Agreement form. I accept the above and take the liability to perform the contractual, financial obligations of the same.”

    

   9. This Forum is of the opinion that the allegations of the complainant cannot be taken up as gospel truth on mere statement. The complainant has merely denied the submission made by OP. Mere denial on the part of complainant in the rejoinder without any valid reason cannot be  accepted. It is not the case of the complainant that the terms and conditions regarding the SIM purchased were not provided to him or were unknown to him.  The complainant had duly signed the said terms and conditions. After accepting and signing the same knowingly the complainant cannot now shy away from these terms and conditions. 
   10. In view of the above discussion we hold that the complainant has miserably failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly  we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

    

             Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

    

    

   (Kiran Kaushal)                                                                            (A.S. Yadav)

   Member                                                                                         President

   Announced on 30.04.19