DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.130/2015

Parali Venkateshwaran Krishnan

A-266, Chattarpur Enclave,

Phase-2, New Delhi-110074

…..Complainant

Versus

Matrix Cellular (International) Services Ltd.

7, Kullar Farms, Mandi Road,

Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030

        ….Opposite Party

 Date of Institution    : 21.05.2015      

 Date of Order            : 11.01.2023      

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

1.      Factual matrix of the complaint is that the Complainant signed up two Standards Plans for his son, one for voice card and the other for data connection from Matrix Cellular International Services, hereinafter referred to as OP. As per the agreement between parties Standard Data Plan for USA, was for Rs. 6,130.12/- wherein Complainant could use 500 MB of data and as per standard voice plan of Rs.3920/- the usage was covered upto 2GB.

2.      It is stated that the Data Card failed to activate but the voice card worked satisfactorily in USA. Complainant’s son returned from USA and both the cards were deposited with OP and after about twelve days of returning the cards, Complainant received a bill amounting to Rs.1,25,534.93/-. Complainant was shocked on receiving such a hefty bill and sought usage details from OP. The details provided by the OP showed the following-

• There was no usage fee for the period 24.01.2015 to 29.01.2015.
• The amount of usage on 29.01.2015 to 02.02.2015 alone amounted to Rs.1,07805.64/-

3.      Complainant was surprised on receiving such a hefty bill as his son was attending fourteen hours long, intense sessions of Modern United Nation’s Program (MUN) during the billed period and he could not have possibly made such long telephonic calls, moreover his son confirmed that he has used the phone very sparingly.

Further it is contended by the Complainant that as the data card had failed to activate, therefore the amount of Rs.6,887.80/- should not be charged by OP.

 4.     Thus aggrieved, Complainant prays for an immediate “Stay Order”, restraining OP from charging any further amount from the American Express Credit Card of the Complainant or by any other means. Complainant further prays that amount of Rs.6,887.80/- charged for the data card of 500 MB should be refunded in full @4% per month, till the date of settlement. Additionally, Complainant has prayed that OP be allowed to charge Rs.4,404/- toward 2GB usage on the voice sim card in respect of the standard plan contracted for and the balance of Rs.33,856.35/- @4% per month be refunded to the Complainant. It is also prayed that an appropriate amount be levied as penalty on OP for the deficiency of service and Complainant be compensated for the time, money and effort spent on to seek redressal of his grievance by legal means.

5.      OP resisted the complaint stating interalia that as per the terms & agreement entered into, Complainant was to pay total of Rs.3,920/- for the voice connection and Rs.349/- for the data card as one-time charge. Upon payment of the plan Complainant was entitled to unlimited free incoming minutes and one thousand free outgoing minutes for calls to India, additionally free data usage up until 2GB + Taxes on the voice connection. The Complainant was entitled to free data usage up until 500MB on the data connection only and the tariff plan was stipulated to be charged at 39.99 dollars.

6.      OP further states that International Sim Card was delivered on 20.01.2015 and accordingly the itemized bill records usages made from the date of departure i.e. January 29, 2015 till the date of return i.e. Feburary, 2015 and there has been no unnecessary or extra charges levied on the Complainant and usages made are in strict adherence to the tariff plan selected by the Complainant.

7.      It is categorically stated by OP that Complainant was provided with the plan whereby data usage till 2GB was to be free and usages made by the Complainant beyond 2GB was in no way enhancement  or refreshing of the standard plan. Any use beyond the limits prescribed were to be charged in accordance with the tariff rate already agreed and not at any premium charge and the Complainant was fully aware of the same. Further, it is stated that OP was under no obligation to provide means to personally track and monitor the consumption of the standard plan.

8.      It is next stated that the ledger of the accounts maintained by OP is cogent evidence that a total of only Rs.36,887.80/- has been deducted by OP in view of services rendered and only in accordance to the express authorization given to OP at the time of signing of the Consumer Agreement Form. OP vehemently denies the statement made by the Complainant regarding the deduction of Rs. 45,149.15/- stating that same is misrepresentation of facts. It is therefore prayed that complaint be dismissed with cost.

9.      Complainant has filed rejoinder wherein he has refused and rebutted the claims of the OP and it is specifically stated that amount of Rs.45,149.15/- was debited from his credit card fraudulently by OP, without obtaining Complainant’s express and specific consent. Evidence by way of affidavit and written submissions have been filed on behalf of parties.  Submissions made are heard. Material placed on record is perused.

10.    It is not disputed that Complainant opted for a Standard data plan as per the terms of agreement between the parties. Dispute between the parties arose when the Complainant received a hefty bill of Rs. 1,25,534.93/- on the usage of the standard voice plan of 2GB. It is not in dispute that the data card failed to activate in US.    

11.    On perusal of the material available with us we find OP to be deficient on two counts. First, the data card, for which OP had charged ,failed to activate  which deprived the Complainant's son from using the internet. The second deficiency of OP is that it failed to inform via SMS ,Email or any other mode about the exhaustion of 1000 minutes of free outgoing calls as per the standard plan . OP in their agreement have not specifically mentioned that after the consumption of 2GB the Complainant will be automatically charged for further usage without any permission or intimation. Therefore, as no specific or express consent/approval was sought from the Complainant for extending the services, OP on its own cannot be allowed to charge for the same.

12.    As regards, the dispute of Rs.45,149.15/- charged by OP from the credit card of the Complainant. It is evident from the statement of account annexed with the complaint that Complainant in toto has paid Rs.45,149.15/- to OP.

13.    Therefore, we are of the opinion that Complainant is entitled for refund of the data card which failed to activate and OP is allowed to charge for usage of only 2GB in the voice plan, for which the Complainant had expressly consented to. Accordingly, OP is directed to prepare the bill and refund the extra amount, if any. Additionally OP is directed to compensate the Complainant by paying Rs 10,000/- towards litigation charges.

File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.