DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.93/2016
Sh. Mohit Tandon
At F-7, Bamdhu Vihar Apartments
Plot-11, Sector-1,
Dwarka, Delhi
….Complainant
Versus
M/s Metrix Cellular Intl. Pvt. Ltd.
At 7 Khullar Farms, Mandi Road,
Mehrauli, New Dehi-110030
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 29.03.16 Date of Order : 04.06.19
Coram:
Sh. A.S. Yadav, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
- Brief facts as stated by the complainant are:-
The complainant, Mohit Tandon took two SIM cards from M/s Matrix Cellular International (Int.) Pvt. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as OP for his scheduled trip to Dubai from 22.02.2015 to 27.05.2015. To the complainant’s dismay on arrival at Dubai on 22.02.2015 the complainant noticed that both the SIM cards provided to him by the OP were non operational. Soon thereafter the complainant through various phone calls, emails followed by constant reminders intimated OP about the dis-functionality of the said SIM cards. The OP did not respond to the complainant for more than 48 hours. It is next stated that it was on / around the afternoon time on 24.02.2015 that the SIM cards started functioning i.e. when half of his trip was over.
1.2 It is further averred that the complainant started using the calling facility as well as the data plan packs of the SIM cards in the light of the contractual stipulations between the complainant and OP pertaining to the tariff and data plans. On arriving back to India complainant was shocked to receive invoices dated 28.02.2015 for both the SIM cards wherein he was charged Rs.65,640/- on both the SIM cards for using local data which was not tenable. As per the data plan in the SIM cards GPRS was free for usage of 500MB data or 512000 KB data which was free of cost, as the same was inclusive in the rental plan subscribed by the complainant. Therefore per se, any extra charge could only be levied upon the complainant in case where the data limit exceeds 500MB of the data or 512000 KB data usage. As per the billing provided to the complainant, the complainant had not transgressed the local data limit, therefore the charges levied as such were arbitrary and incomprehensible. As per the agreement between the parties, OP had the credit card details of the complainant and the amount of Rs.65,000/- which is arbitrary/ unreasonable was debited from the account of the complainant.
1.3 Thereafter, series of emails were exchanged between the parties wherein the OP refused to wave off and refund the unreasonable charges levied upon the complainant.
- 4 Aggrieved by the circumstances above, the complainant approached the Forum to direct OP with the following prayer:-
- To direct OP to refund Rs.65,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 18% from the date of payment/ realization of this amount till date.
- To direct the OP to compensate the complainant with Rs.2,00,000/- as damages on account of mental harassment, torture suffered by the complainant on account of deficient services provided by the OP.
- To direct the OP to discontinue such unfair trade practice forthwith and not to repeat the same as provided under Section 14(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- OP resisted the complaint inter-alia on the ground that the OP is merely a SIM card provider and not a service provider. It is submitted that the OP merely facilitates International Cellular Services. OP further submits that often the reasons for non-activation of the international cellular services are beyond the knowledge / control of the OP and can be best answered by the domestic service provider in the concerned country of travel. Moreover, the non functionality may be on account of technical glitch in the network of the domestic service provider. Therefore, the reasons behind the non-functionality of the complainant’s SIM cards for the first two days is best known by the service provider i.e. Etislat.
- It is next submitted by OP that the domestic service provider (operator) had activated the said International SIM cards with zero rental plans in transgression of the earlier Tariff Plans, as the same were not functioning on the account of the network congestion or for any another reasons by best known by the domestic service provider (operator). Therefore, for the smooth functioning of the international mobile connections, the service provider had to alter the Tariff Plan selected.
- It is further submitted that the OP was only made aware of the alterations of the Tariff Plans at the subsequent stage when bills had already been generated and raised upon the complainant. Furthermore, it is submitted that the email dated 26.02.2015 was duly replied to by OP wherein it is stated that as an act of good faith no bills would be raised in relation to the said International mobile connections unless usage is recorded. OP has denied any wrongful act was committed by OP as the bills have been raised and generated by OP were charged as per the usage made. Hence it is prayed that complaint be dismissed with cost.
3. Complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by OP reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
4. Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Binod Kumar Sinha, Executive, Legal with OP has been filed.
5. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
6. We have heard the arguments of the complainant. No one has appeared on behalf of the OP to advance oral arguments despite giving the opportunity. We have also gone through the file very carefully.
7. First issue pertaining to the said complaint is that complainant despite taking two SIM cards from OP none was functional for initial 48 hours of his landing in Dubai. The complainant must have had to face harrowing experience as both the SIM cards provided by the OP were not operational and he could not get in touch with his family and friends. Furthermore, the complainant tried contacting OP through calls and mails to make the SIM cards functional but did not receive any response from OP in the first 48 hours.
- OP has tried to shun the responsibility for such deficiency stating that OP is merely a SIM card provider and not a service provider. The non-functionality of the SIM cards can be best answered by Domestic Service Provider in the country of travel. OP has nowhere in its pleading provided any documentary evidence wherein he had informed the complainant of any such condition. We are of the opinion that OP cannot wriggle out from his responsibility now after failing to provide the services which were promised.
- The second contention between the parties is that OP has charged sum of Rs.65,640/- for using local data. It is evidently clear from the data plan and the billing details sent to the complainant that data limit in both the SIM cards were not transgressed and were well within the limit provided to the complainant in the data plan. Hence, OP should not have charged the said amount to the complainant.
11. In the light of above discussions, we hold OP to be guilty of deficient in service as well as unfair trade practices. Therefore, the complaint is allowed and we direct OP to refund Rs.65,640/- along with interest @ 10% from the date of payment till realization. Additionally OP is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for damages on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation cost within two months of receipt of copy this order, failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount of Rs.65,640/- from the date of payment till realization.
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.
Announced on 04.06.19
