BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Veena Goyal w/o Sh. Rajesh Goyal, R/o #2632, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Limited, Plot No. 45, Apex Motors, 1^st Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative.

2]  ABN AMRO Bank, now the Royal Bank of Scotland, B-148, Sector 10, Noida – 201301.

                      ……Opposite Parties

3]  Amandeep Kaur Dhaliwal, through his father Sh. Mohinder Singh Dhaliwal, Dhaliwal Patti, Near Badi Sath, V.P.O. Talliwal.

……. Performa Opposite Party

CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL                    PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by:     Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.

          Sh. B.S. Dogra, Counsel for OP No.1.

           Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP No.2.

           Sh. G.S. Toor, Counsel for OP No.3.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

         The complainant has filed the present complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. The Complainant, who is a Director of M/s Navigators Overseas Solutions Pvt. Ltd., was approached by Amandeep Kaur Dhaliwal – OP No.3  in August, 2010, for getting student Visa for Canada. On successfully getting the Visa, OP No.3 requested the Complainant to get an International SIM Card issued, for which she was advised to contact OP No.1. On 25.8.2010, OP No.3 got filled one Customer Agreement Form from OP No.3, wherein the duration of the SIM Card was mentioned to be from 01/09/2010 to 05/09/2010 and the SIM issue date was mentioned to be 25/08/2010 and the SIM return date was recorded as 20/09/2010. The OP No. 3 did not have any Credit Card, so on the persuasion of OP No.1 and OP No.3, the Complainant gave her Credit Card Number, on the assurance that the SIM would be deactivated in five days. 

         It was alleged that the Complainant received a bill dated 08/09/2010 for the period from 01/09/2010 to 05/09/2010 amounting to Rs.16,515.93P. That the amount of Rs.16515.93P was deducted from her credit card account. The said fact was immediately brought to the notice of parents of OP No.3, upon which they paid the amount to the Complainant.

         Further, to the surprise of the Complainant, she received another bill dated 06/10/2010 for the period from 06/09/2010 to 23/09/2010, amounting to Rs.92,598.34P. She, immediately, approached the OP No.1, who divulged that the SIM was to be deactivated on 05.09.2010. The detail showed the usage of mobile phone from 05/09/2010 to 23/09/2010. The ordeal of the Complainant did not stop here as on 22/10/2010, she received a message on her mobile from OP No.2 that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to OP No.1, upon which the Complainant told the OP No. 2 to block the Card. Despite this, OP No.2 further credited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with OP No.1. Thereafter, the Complainant kept on sending the mails to the OPs No. 1 and 2, but no response regarding the alleged loss suffered by her was ever received. Not only this, Complainant also wrote to the parents of OP No.3 to clear the payment of the phone used by their daughter, but no tangible result could come out. Hence, this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3.             OP No.1 in its written statement, pleaded that its business is to provide cards of foreign network in India, so that the people, who visit foreign land, can get phone facilities at applicable local rates. It was admitted that SIM card was hired by OP No.3. The Complainant had voluntarily given her credit card details and undertaking for payment for any usage made by the OP No.3. It was asserted that since OP No.3 had utilized the SIM Card even after the expected date of return of card, the Complainant was legally liable to pay for the amount of usage of SIM Card. The bills were generated for the actual usage and SIM Card was deactivated within three days of expected return date of the SIM Card. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP No.2 in its written statement, pleaded that the Complainant had provided the details of her credit card for the purposes of debit of the amount of the usage/bill of SIM Card. The Complainant having given her consent for the same, cannot be permitted to back out. Further, an interse understanding between the Complainant and OP No. 3 is not binding on the OP No.1. It was asserted that OP No.2 was duty bound to make payment against the demand raised against the credit card on account of the instructions of the Complainant, subject of the maximum credit limit. The Complainant did not issue instructions for the blocking of the credit card or for cancellation of instructions given by her. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             OP No.3 in her written statement, admitted that she had paid Rs.1.50 lacs to the Complainant for getting the student Visa. The deal was entirely between the Complainant and OP Nos.1 & 2. It was admitted that Rs.16,515.93P was paid by the answering OP to the Complainant, so that the relations between the parties may not sour. It was asserted that negotiation regarding the phone was entirely between the Complainant and the OPs No.1 and 2. It was decided that the validity of the phone connection shall be for the period of 15 days. After 15 days, the responsibility was of the Complainant to surrender the connection. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

6.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

8.       The learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant received a bill dated 6.10.2010 for the period from 6.9.2010 to 23.9.2010, qua which the demand of Rs.92,598.34P was raised by OP No.1. The said demand of Rs.92,598.34P is stated to be illegal, as it pertains to the usage of the mobile phone from 6.9.2010 to 23.9.2010, whereas the duration of the SIM Card was from 1.9.2010 to 5.9.2010. It is also the allegation of the complainant that she received a message on 22.10.2010 from OP No.2 that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to OP No.1, upon which she told OP No.2 to block the card. Despite this, OP No.2 credited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in her account.

9.       The learned Counsel for OP No.1 has admitted that SIM Card was hired by OP No.3. That the complainant had voluntarily given her credit card details with the undertaking for payment for any usage made by the OP No.3. Since OP No.3 had utilized the SIM Card, though after the expected date of return of card, even then the complainant is duty bound to pay for the amount of usage of SIM Card, as the details were generated for the actual usage and SIM Card was deactivated within three days of expected return date of the SIM Card.

10.      The learned Counsel for OP No.2 had raised the defence that the complainant had provided the details of her credit card for the purposes of debit of the amount of the usage/bill of SIM Card. There was an inter-se understanding between the complainant and OP No.3 regarding it. The OP No.2 was duty bound to make payment against the demand raised against the credit card on account of the instructions from her, subject to the maximum credit limit.

11.      OP No.3 has raised the plea that the alleged deal was entirely between the complainant and OP No.2. The validity of the phone connection was for 15 days and after the expiry of 15 days, it was the duty of the complainant to surrender the connection.  

12.      We need not to go into the merits of the case, as at page No.7 of the written arguments filed by the complainant under the heading “Efforts to mislead the Court”, vide para No.2, it has been admitted that the amount in question has been credited into the account of the complainant in the month of June.

13.      The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that in view of the fact that the disputed amount has been credited in the month of June in the account of the complainant, so the complainant is only entitled for the compensation and litigation costs.

14.      Admittedly, the present complaint was filed on 22.2.2010 and the disputed amount has been credited in the account of the complainant in the month of June. Thus it is held that the grouse of the complainant has been satisfied after the filing of the complaint. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for compensation for mental agony and harassment and also for litigation costs, which are assessed to be Rs.7500/- and Rs.2500/- respectively, to be paid by OP No.1. However, it is made clear that no deficiency has been found qua OPs No.2 and 3, so the complaint against them is ordered to be dismissed.

15.      This order be complied with by OP No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP No.1 shall be liable to pay total amount of Rs.7500/- along with penal interest @ 12% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint till its realization besides Rs.2500/- as litigation costs.

16.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.