BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.456 of 2014

Date of Instt. 30.12.2014

Date of Decision :05.03.2015

Ashok Kumar Lealh, aged about 60 years son of Surjit Ram, R/o 15-Karol Bagh, Ladhewali, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Matrix Cellular international Services Pvt Ltd, through its General Manager, 7, Khullar Farms, Mandi Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030.

2. Amitabh Shoor, Asst.Manager, Channel Sales, 304-305, Lotus Tower, 3rd Floor, GT Road, Near Hotel Raddison, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Arun Gupta Adv., counsel for complainant.

Opposite parties exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased two post-paid mobile sim cards bearing mobile No.0918089563(Thailand used from 8.9.2014 to 11.9.2014) and another No.0406388965(Australia used from 12.9.2014 to 26.9.2014) through the opposite party No.2. The complainant received SMS on 15.9.2014, 16.9.2014 and 4.10.2014 from PNB Credit Card for having paid a sum of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5000/- and Rs.24338.85/- to the opposite party No.1, in respect of the above said mobile phone bills. The opposite parties debited the account of the complainant's credit card before issuing any bill and thereby misused the credit card of the complainant. The complainant made a call to the call centre of the opposite parties on 26.9.2014 for knowing the status of the sim cards of the complainant and it was informed by the call centre of the opposite parties but the sim cards of the complainant have been blocked due to non payment of the bills. The complainant requested to send the bill detail of the sim cards to the complainant and they told a bill of Rs.19,876.98/- is due and they are sending the detail bill and details of calls, which was received by the complainant on the next day. The complainant received another demand/bill amounting to Rs.24,338.85/- of the same sim for the same period in respect of mobile No.0406388965. The duration of the calls has been increased arbitrarily in the bill of Rs.24,338.85/- than that of the bill of Rs.19,876.98/- as the duration of the bills did not match as the sim was blocked by the opposite parties, as such question of increase in the duration, does not arise at all. On 24.10.2014, the complainant received an other bill through E-mail with regarding to the mobile No.0918089563(Thailand) amounting to Rs.17,750.18/-, but the amount of Rs.15,000/- debited to the credit card account of the complainant on 15.9.2014 and 16.9.2014 has not been adjusted in any of the above bills, whereas this bill pertains to calls made during the period 8.9.2014 to 11.9.2014 i.e 4 days only, apparently duration has been increased arbitrarily. The opposite parties have no right to use the credit card of the complainant before raising any demand/issuing any bill. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for refund of amount of Rs.39,338/- alongwith with interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and closed evidence.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant.

5. Complainant purchased two post-paid mobile sim cards one for use in Australia used from 12.9.2014 to 26.9.2014 and another for use in Thailand used from 8.9.2014 to 11.9.2014 through opposite party No.2. Ex.C1 is detail of the sim card used in Australia wherein first call date on 12.9.2014 and last call date on 26.9.2014 are mentioned. Further in Ex.C1 the total amount or charges are mentioned as Rs.19876.98/-. However, the opposite parties sent him a bill Ex.C6 for Rs.24838.85/-. It is not understandable as to how the amount mentioned in Ex.C1 subsequently increased in bill Ex.C6. Further the duration of the calls made by the complainant in Australia are mentioned in Ex.C2 sent with Ex.C1 are different than the duration mentioned in Ex.C7 sent alongwith the bill Ex.C6. For example in Ex.C2 the duration of call made on 12.9.2014 is mentioned as 218 seconds but in details of call Ex.C7 sent alongwith bill Ex.C6 it is mentioned as 4 minutes. Similarly, there is difference of duration in respect of some other calls. So opposite parties have charged Rs.24838.85 - Rs.19876.98 = Rs.4961.87/- in excess. It constitute unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. Counsel for the complainant failed show any discrepancy regarding the mobile used in Thailand.

6. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite party No.1 is directed to refund Rs.4961.87/- to the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. 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

05.03.2015 Member Member President