Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/619/2014

Vedika Gandhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Matrix Cellular - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Suvineet Sharma Adv.

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	619 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	01.12.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	29.01.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Vedika Gandhi daughter of Mr.Atul Gandhi, aged 19 years, resident of House NO.62, Sector 2, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office : 7, Khullar Farm, Mandhi Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030, through its Managing Director.

 

2]  Managing director, Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office : 7, Khullar Farm, Mandi Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi 110030

 

3]  Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.188-189, First Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Ms.Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate with               Sh.Gourav Goel, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant had purchased a Cell Phone connection No.+44 7726682587 for United Kingdom from Opposite Parties as the complainant was travelling abroad i.e. U.K. for a conference and was required to stay in United Kingdom for the period 17.7.2014 to 24.7.2014 (Ann.C-1), so she could remain in touch with her family while travelling abroad (Ann.C-2).  That the Matrix connection issued by Opposite Party No.3 was activated on 16.7.2014 and was required to remain operative & active till her return to India on 24.7.2014.  However, the Matrix connection was deactivated on the intervening night of 22/23.7.2014 at midnight United Kindgom time, whereas it was to be operative till 24.7.2014.  It is averred that the Chandigarh Office of the OPs was requested a number of times to re-activate the said number, but it was not done, as a result, the complainant in a foreign country had to suffer harassment and mental tension in the absence of a phone. 

         It is submitted that the complainant was shocked to receive a bill of Rs.3822.51, dated 31.7.2014 from the Opposite Parties for the period 25.6.2014 to 29.7.2014 in her name, but the Matrix number given was 07550047397, whereas the number issued to her was 07726682587 and the connection of the complainant had only been activated on 16.7.2014 and not 25.6.2014.  When this matter was reported to the OPs, they issued another bill, which too was incorrect since it shows usage from 13.7.2014 to 27.7.2014 and is again for the incorrect number i.e. 07550047397.  This anomaly was again pointed out to the OPs, but to no effect (Ann.C-3). It is also submitted that the complainant has returned the SIM Card of OPs vide receipt dated 22.8.2014 with an endorsement (Ann.C-4).  It is asserted that the above facts shows that the Opposite Parties have mischievously and intentionally issued a wrong bill with an intention to extort money from the complainant.  Further, the sequence of events has resulted in acute mental harassment to the complainant due to careless and negligent deactivation of the same connection 48 hours prior to the contracted schedule.  It is also asserted that despite a period of more than three months have passed during which the complainant has repeatedly requested for a resolution of the issue especially the rectification of the bill, no corrected bill has been sent till date and on the contrary, the complainant has been receiving repeated e-mails and text messages to forthwith clear the payment of Rs.3822.51 and also received a threatening call from the Opposite Parties to recover the amount by other modes.  Ultimately, the complainant sent legal notice dated 30.10.2014 (Ann.c-5), but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed written statement and admitted that the complainant was travelling to United Kingdom and for the same availed the services of Opposite Party.  It is stated that the complainant has availed the services of the Opposite Party by more than one Sim Card.  It is also stated that the Opposite Party as a Telecom Service facilitator and not provider does not control the activation of Sim Cards and thus all the Sim Cards provided to the Customers of the Opposite Party are already active at the time when they are provided.  It is admitted that the requested date of activation of the Sim Card was between July 16-24, 2015 (Annexure A-Colly.).  It is submitted that the services provided to the complainant remained active for the requested period.  It is pleaded that the complainant received the correct bill, as the number 07550047397 was also provided to the complainant as well and the complainant has not returned the Sim Card for the same to the Opposite Party till date. It is admitted that the complainant returned one Sim Card (256181827351) to the Opposite Party on 22.1.2014, but did not return the Sim Card for the mobile No.07550047397 to the Opposite Party till date.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder to the written statement of OPs has also been filed by the complainant wherein the assertions as made in the complaint have been reiterated and controverted that of the written statement of OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint on the ground that during her travel to United Kingdom from 17^th to 24^th July, 2014, as she had to attend a conference and in order to remain in touch with her family member, as well as for her convenience during her stay in United Kingdom, she subscribed for mobile connection from Opposite Party No.3, which was issued to her on 16^th July, 2014 in an activated state.  The complainant while still in the foreign country, was surprised to find that her mobile connection had ben de-activated on the intervening night of 22/23.7.2014.  The complainant as well as her family members brought this fact to the knowledge of the Opposite Parties as she felt out of touch as well as handicapped due to the lack of connection with her family members. 

 

7]       The requests of the complainant as well as her family members did not bear any fruit and the mobile remained out of order till she came back to India on 24.7.2014.  The complainant was further surprised to receive a bill amounting to Rs.3822.51/- for the period 25.6.2014 to 29.7.2014, against the connection which was not issued to her.  Furthermore, she had only applied for the connection for the period beginning from 17.7.2014 to 24.7.2014.  The complainant raised this issue with the Opposite Parties, while returning her Sim Card on 22.8.2014, as per Annexure C-4, but the matter remained unresolved.  The complainant was also astonished to receive another bill though belonging to her mobile number, which she used in UK, but the details of this bill were for the period from 13.7.2014 to 21.7.2014.  Thus, aggrieved on account of the de-activation of her mobile phone while she was still in UK, issuance of wrong bill pertaining to some another number and issuance of a bill for her mobile connection issued to her for the period from 13.7.2014 to 16.7.2014, which was prior to the issuance of connection in her name, the complainant is alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as well as unfair trade practice and has sought the quoted relief.

 

8]       The Opposite Parties have contested the claim of the complainant by filing their reply in the shape of an affidavit, and raising preliminary objection to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr., cited in 2009 8 SCC 481. 

9]       While contesting the present complaint on merits, the Opposite Parties have claimed that the complainant was issued not one, but two Sim Cards and though, she had returned one Sim Card and has retained the another one.  The OPs admitted that the date of activation of the Sim Card, returned by her was, from 16^th to 24^th July, 2015 and that the OPs were a Telecom Services Facilitator and were not a Telecom company itself.  It is further disclosed that the Sim Cards issued to their customers are already active at the time of their issuance and that the Opposite Parties does not have any control on the telecom service providers, who are based in foreign countries, with regard to the services provided by them in the countries, where the complainant may use such Sim Cards.  Thus claiming no deficiency in service on their parties, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

10]      We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the opinion that the preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the complaint, are not tenable for the reason that it has nowhere been explained that the Opposite Parties in any manner fall under the definition of General Manager Telecom, as the quoted case is only with regard to G.M.Telecom and there is no document on record to show that the Opposite Parties had in any manner offered to resolve the dispute with its consumers through the process of arbitration as there is no copy of agreement from the side of the Opposite Parties to substantiate that the matter as discussed in the quoted citation was squarely covered in letter and spirit.  Therefore, in the absence of any supportive document, the mere quoting of such citation, would in no manner oust the jurisdiction of this Forum, to try this complaint. Hence, the preliminary objection of the OPs is out rightly rejected.

 

11]      While dealing with the merits of the present complaint, it is abundantly clear even from the admission of the Opposite Parties that the Matrix Cellular connection issued to the complainant was for the period from 17^th to 24^th July, 2014. It is also admitted by the complainant and endorsed by the Opposite Parties that the connection issued to the complainant for the purpose of travel to UK was handed over to her on 16.7.2014 in an activated state.  But the Opposite Parties have plainly washed their hands off of the issue of de-activation of the connection on the intervening night of 22/23.7.2014, by claiming that the Sim Card remained active for the requested period. The Opposite Parties while denying all the allegations of the complainant with regard to issuance of wrong bill and also that the matter was more than what was explained by the complainant, as she was issued two different Sim Cards, out of which only one sim card was returned and the second sim card, was still with her. The Opposite Parties while claiming such issues have not placed on record the copy of agreement or the receipt of second sim card alleged to have been issued to the complainant, whereas there is only one application form, placed on record by the OPs as at Page No.7 of their reply and while relating this document with Ann.C-4, it is revealed that only one Sim Card was issued to the complainant which bore the No.256181827351, as per Ann.C-2, which is the screen shot of the details as flashed on the screen of the mobile of the complainant.  The bill issued to the complainant Ann.C-3 and the details found annexed along with it, pertains to the period beginning 25.6.2014 to 20.7.2014, which is for the period, when the connection was not even issued to the complainant, as she had received the activated sim card only on 16.7.2014.  Even the subsequent bill, which the complainant has placed on record along with her rejoinder is for the period 13.7.2014 to 21.7.2014, which too is for the period much prior to the date of issuance of activated sim card to the complainant i.e. 16.7.2014.  Therefore, in the present situation, both these bills have been raised for the period prior to 16.7.2014, when the complainant was not even in the custody of the sim card, for such period.  Thus, the claim of such amount, when the services were no provided to the complainant, is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.  Furthermore, the Opposite Parties have themselves not placed on record any bill for the period between 21.7.2014 to 24.7.2014, which clearly proves that the sim card in question was not in use for whatsoever the reasons, which the Opposite Parties have failed to explain, and compel us to believe the averments of the complaint point towards the facts that the complainant could not enjoy the services of the mobile connection and certainly felt marooned in an unfamiliar foreign location. This fact has certainly add inconvenience to the complainant, as well as her family members, who were worried about her well being when she was out of touch with them.  Thus, causing harassment and mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

12]     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua Opposite Parties. The Opposite parties are jointly & severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant, towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses.

         This order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

29^th January, 2016                                                                

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.619 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 29th day of January, 2016

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member