DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.157/2016
Ms. Swetal Pandey
W/o Dr. Kavish Chouhan,
R/o 117, Upper Ground Floor,
Kailash Hills, New Delhi- 110065 ….Complainant
Versus
Matrix Cellular (International)
Services Pvt. Ltd.
7, Khullar Farms, Mandi Road,
Mehrauli, New Delhi- 110030
Matrix Cellular (International)
Services Pvt. Ltd.
Space 17 to 24, Ground Floor,
Block- F, American Plaza,
International Trade Tower,
New Delhi- 110019
Through its Director/Chairman. .....Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 25.05.2016
Date of Order : 11.02.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
Succinctly put, the Complainant has put in a claim for refund of the excess amount taken illegally alongwith interest @18% per annum; to grant compensation of Rs.15,000/- in her favour for causing harassment, humiliation etc., to refrain from such unfair trade practice for which, the OP should be penalized with heavy penalty and cost of this complaint etc.
The facts leading to the case are that the Complainant had taken two SIM Cards from M/s Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd. & others (hereinafter referred as OP-1) having number 971506499183 and 971506498361 while travelling to Dubai from Delhi on 30.04.2014 at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on the repeated requests of OP-1. It was briefed to the complainant that while using the above mentioned SIMs in Dubai, the calls from these mobile nos. and vice-versa shall be free. On the recommendation of OPs, the Complainant also bought additional 500 MB data plan on the above said numbers. After returning from Dubai, the Complainant was shocked and taken aback when the OP in an unprofessional and unethical manner illegally deducted the amount of Rs.22701.77/- from the Credit Card of Complainant, whereas the Complainant had not used the services as claimed.
This fact of deduction of amount from Credit Card was not brought to the knowledge of the Complainant. OP-1 provided the copy of bill much later on e-mail, which is exhibited as Annexure C/2 (Colly). More shocking fact was that the Complainant had used only 250 MB of data, whereas the OP-1 had claimed that the Complainant had used 2.3 GB data. The Complainant had taken screen shot of said mobile numbers and same is exhibited as Annexure C/3. The Complainant took up the matter of higher charges with OP vide e-mail dated 11.06.2014. The Complainant also alleges that the OPs are in the habit of mailing inflated bills as can be seen from the judgements of various fora including NCDRC. The OPs had never given satisfactory reply and no reply in response to Legal Notice was reverted.
On the other hand, the OP-1 maintains that the Complainant had taken on rent, two international connections i.e. 971506499183 and 971506498361 corresponding to Agreements bearing No. T1000657487 and T1000657488. The same is exhibited alongwith the Tariff Sheet bearing Plan Code: DL99C4G0214APTS12 as Annexure-‘A’(Colly). It is also added that the Complainant had provided explicit authorization in favour of the OP to raise credit note in relation to the bills generated and raised upon the Complainant. OP also took preliminary objection that she did not receive any legal notice. Moreover, the Complainant was also provided with itemized bills. OP-1 also additionally educated the Complainant that all available plans were operative in the UAE only. The bill raised, is strictly in accordance with the Tariff Plan selected. Further, it is added that incoming calls on Close User Group (CUG) were not charged as per Tariff Plan. The OP also vehemently rebutted the charges of the Complainant and further stated that firstly, the Complainant approached the OP; secondly, the complainant made usages and thereafter withheld the payment due as per terms and conditions of the aforesaid Agreements. It was also exhorted that the Complainant is legally bound to follow the terms and conditions set out therein. It is alleged that the complainant owes the sum of Rs.22701.77/- and same is strictly as per Account ledger of OP. Credit Card transaction made on June 6, 2014 discharges the liability bestowed upon the Complainant in lieu of services availed of the OP. Account ledger is exhibited as Annexure ‘B’.
Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidences by way of Affidavit. Rejoinder is also on record, so is the written statement of OP. Oral arguments are heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the material placed on record carefully. The central issue of the contention is of higher charges and deduction of the bill amount from the credit card of the Complainant without his prior notice. We have also pondered over the Consumer Agreement Forms minutely. The following line from said Agreement form is reproduced here for the sake of the appreciation of the facts:-
“I, being the Customer or Guarantor, authorise Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd. to transact through my credit card (as above) securely deposit bill payment, recovery against SIM/handset lost or any other liability occurring out of the agreement........”
Further added: Customer undertaking from the said Agreement.
“ 1. I hereby undertake not to use the SIM card in India.
2. I am aware that any usage made on cruise or outside home country will be on international roaming- charges will be upto USD-10/ unless specified in Tariff Plan.”
It would be seen from the above excerpts of the Consumer Agreement Form that there is specific undertaking from the Complainant that if the said mobile/SIM is used outside the home country i.e. UAE here, the call shall be on international charges. We have also thoroughly looked into the bill raised against both the SIM Cards/Mobile Phones alongwith copy of Account ledger, it is noticed that the charges are largely on account of international calls. Further, the Complainant has not countered the Consumer Agreement Forms & Tariff Plan. Moreover, the Complainant has not placed reliance on the Consumer Agreement Form while submitting the evidence by way of affidavit. From the above, it is also noticed that the Complainant herself authorised the OP to transact through her Credit Card.
Keeping in view the fact & circumstances mentioned above, this Commission is convinced that the Complaint is devoid of merit & accordingly the complaint is rejected. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
