BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 37of 2015

Date of Institution: 13.01.2015

Date of Decision: 02.02.2016 

Kuldeep Singh son of Ajit Singh, proprietor of S.K.Knitwear Building No.T-16-195, Bazar Bakkarwana I/S Sheran Wala Gate, Amritsar-143001. 

Complainant

Versus

1. Managing Director (M.D), Bharti Airtel Limited, Bharti Crescent-1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj Phase-II, New Delhi-110070.
2. Manager, Bharti Airtel Limited, Hall Bazar, Amritsar-143001. 

Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant:  In person.

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Gautam Majithia, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Kuldeep Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is doing the business under the name and style of M/s.S.K.Knitwear, Inside Sheran Wala Gate, Amritsar and he purchased  4 SIMs bearing Nos.9814077719, 9888497020, 7508463243, 7837458993 on rent of Rs.599/-, Rs.399/-, Rs.199/- and Rs.99/- from Opposite Parties  through their agent. Complainant alleges that on the aforesaid four connections, he was provided free facility of SMS, internet, outgoing or income and roaming as well as free calls inter-see,  by Opposite Parties. Complainant alleges that said service of four SIMs was activated by Opposite Parties  on 27.10.2014. Opposite Parties  sent bill in the first week of December, 2014 which amounting to Rs.2032.95 paisa. This bill was for the period 5.10.2014 to 4.11.2014. Complainant alleged that this bill is wrong as the Opposite Parties activated the service on the aforesaid SIMs on 27.10.2014 whereas they have claimed the charges from 5.10.2014. Complainant further submitted that bill for the one month of the aforesaid SIMs approximately comes to Rs.1300/-, but the Opposite Parties  have charged Rs.2032.95 paisa. Complainant approached the office of Opposite Parties for details of the aforesaid bills, on 15.12.2014, but the staff of the Opposite Parties refused to provide the detail on the ground that system is not working. Thereafter, the complainant received so many messages and telephone calls from Opposite Parties  to deposit the amount of the aforesaid bill, but the complainant did not deposit the amount of the aforesaid bill as he had to go to Ludhiana to join his shop there. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties  stopped the outgoing service on the aforesaid SIMs of the complainant despite the fact that the bill limit of the complainant was Rs.12000/-. Thereafter, on 29.12.2014, the complainant visited the Head Office of Opposite Parties  and approached Branch Head Mamta Dhawan to get the aforesaid bill rectified, but the Opposite Parties  instead of rectifying the bill increased the amount of the bill to Rs.6112.37 paisa and told the complainant to deposit this amount. This bill was for six numbers of SIMs. When the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, they admitted that the bill of the complainant should have been of four SIMS and the Opposite Parties  told the complainant to deposit Rs.3000/- and then they would start the outgoing services. Complainant resultantly, deposited Rs.3000/- with Opposite Parties  vide receipt dated 30.12.2014 and also requested the Opposite Parties  to disconnect one SIM No. 98884-97020. Then the Opposite Parties activated the service of the remaining three SIMS of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant charged Rs.1900/- vide reference dated 5.1.2015. Complainant further submitted that on 6.1.2015 at 10.45 AM the complainant received call on his mobile No. 97796-19509 telling the complainant to deposit the amount of the bill due. The complainant told the person on telephone that he had already deposited the amount due. But inspite of that, the Opposite Party went on harassing the complainant. Again on 8.1.2015, the complainant received call from Opposite Parties who also asked the complainant to deposit the amount of the bill due and when the complainant told them that the complainant is being harassed, then the said official of the Opposite Parties  used abusive language. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties  stopped outgoing services of the aforesaid mobile numbers of the complainant. On 9.1.2015, the complainant approached the office of Opposite Parties, then the Opposite Parties  told the complainant that an amount of Rs.431/- was outstanding against the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant deposited the amount due payable by the complainant and got the outgoing service restored on the aforesaid SIMs. Opposite Party further told the complainant to deposit Rs.5300/- as the balance amount, but they did not provide the detail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to redress his grievance and also to make the payment of Rs.60,000/-.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the billing system of the Opposite Party- company is fully computerized and does not involve any human intervention. The complainant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The Opposite Parties  have installed one of the best billing software. It is submitted that complainant has been charged for the usage. The billing happens in the computerized billing system of the company only when a voice service/ SMS/ VAS is used by the customer. The case of complainant falls within the category of  commercial purpose, as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. It is further submitted that the complainant had been enjoying services of the Opposite Parties  without paying for the same. It is further submitted that the Opposite Parties  are empowered to disconnect services on the Mobile Number under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, if on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with the rules, or bills for charges in respect of calls of phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are not duly paid by him, any telephone  or telephones or any telex service rented by him, may be disconnected without notice.  It is further submitted that no threat and / or abusive language was used by the Opposite Parties as alleged by the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant was charged as per the usage made and he was bound to pay for the services used. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Birinder Singh Mohindru, Manager (Legal) Ex.OP1,2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased  four SIMs bearing Nos.9814077719, 9888497020, 7508463243, 7837458993 on rent of Rs.599/-, Rs.399/-, Rs.199/- and Rs.99/- respectively, which included SMS, internet, outgoing, income and roaming calls. It also included free call inter-see. Complainant submitted that said  service of four SIMs was activated by the Opposite Parties  on 27.10.2014. Opposite Parties  sent bill in the first week of December, 2014 amounting to Rs.2032.95 paisa. This bill was for the period 5.10.2014 to 4.11.2014. Complainant further submitted that this bill is wrong as the Opposite Parties  activated the service on the aforesaid SIMs on 27.10.2014 whereas they have claimed the charges from 5.10.2014. Complainant further submitted that bill for the one month of the aforesaid SIMs approximately comes to Rs.1300/-, but the Opposite Parties  have charged Rs.2032.95 paisa. Complainant approached the office of Opposite Parties for details of the aforesaid bills, on 15.12.2014, but the staff of the Opposite Parties refused to provide the detail on the ground that  system is not working. Thereafter, the complainant received so many messages and telephone calls from Opposite Parties  to deposit the amount of the aforesaid bill, but the complainant did not deposit the amount of the aforesaid bill as he had to go to Ludhiana to join his shop there. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties  stopped the outgoing service on the aforesaid SIMs of the complainant despite the fact that the bill limit of the complainant was Rs.12000/-. Thereafter, on 29.12.2014, the complainant visited the Head Office of Opposite Parties  and approached Branch Head Mamta Dhawan to get the aforesaid bill rectified, but the Opposite Parties  instead of rectifying the bill increased the amount of the bill to Rs.6112.37 paisa and told the complainant to deposit this amount. This bill was for six numbers of SIMs. When the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, they admitted that the bill of the complainant should have been of four SIMS and the Opposite Parties  told the complainant to deposit Rs.3000/- and then they would start the outgoing services. Complainant resultantly, deposited Rs.3000/- with Opposite Parties  vide receipt dated 30.12.2014 and also requsted the Opposite Parties  to disconnect one SIM No. 98884-97020. Then the Opposite Parties  activated the service of the remaining three SIMs of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant charged Rs.1900/- vide reference dated 5.1.2015. Complainant further submitted that on 6.1.2015 at 10.45 AM the complainant received call on his mobile No. 97796-19509 telling the complainant to deposit the amount of the bill due. The complainant told the person on telephone that he had already deposited the amount due. But inspite of that, the Opposite Party went on harassing the complainant. Again on 8.1.2015, the complainant received call from Opposite Parties  for  depositing the amount of the bill due and when the complainant told them that the complainant is being harassed, then the said official of the Opposite Parties  used abusive language. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties  stopped outgoing services of the aforesaid mobile number of the complainant. On 9.1.2015, the complainant approached the office of Opposite Parties, then the Opposite Parties  told the complainant that an amount of Rs.431/- was outstanding against the complainant. Then the complainant deposited the amount due payable by the complainant and got the outgoing service restored on the aforesaid SIMs. Opposite Party further told the complainant to deposit Rs.5300/- as the balance amount, but they did not provide the detail.   Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties is that the case of complainant falls within the category of  commercial purpose. The  complainant had been enjoying services of the Opposite Parties  without paying for the same. Opposite Parties  are empowered to disconnect services on the Mobile Number under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules for non payment of the bills as the complainant did not pay  the bills to the Opposite Parties  regularly, despite so many messages and telephonic calls were given to the complainant to deposit the bills of the aforesaid mobile phones.  Opposite Parties submitted that they never agreed with the complainant that his bill would not exceed Rs.1300/- as alleged by the complainant. Opposite Parties  further submitted that the calls/ SMS charges, etc. are captured  in the computerized billing system of the company only when a voice service/ SMS/ VAS is used by the subscriber and the complainant was bound to pay for the service used and the Opposite Parties  are well within their right to debar the outgoing services for non payment of the bills for the service used by the complainant.  Opposite Party further submitted that no  threat and / or abusive language was used by any staff of the  Opposite Parties as alleged by the complainant. The complainant was charged as per the usage made and he was bound to pay for the services used. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased four SIMs bearing Nos.9814077719, 9888497020, 7508463243, 7837458993 in the name of his firm M/s.S.K.Knitwear, Bazar Bakkarwana, Inside Sheran Wala Gate, Amritsar. Complainant submitted that the rent of these SIMs  was  Rs.599/-, Rs.399/-, Rs.199/- and Rs.99/- respectively. But the complainant could not produce any document that these SIMs were on fixed rent as stated by the complainant or that the Opposite Parties  were not bound to charge the bills for excessive calls or usage of the service of the Opposite Parties on the aforesaid SIMs. Opposite Parties  sent bill of Rs.1932.95 paisa i.e. bill Ex.C2 dated 6.11.2014 for the period 5.10.2014 to 4.11.2014. The complainant has submitted that this bill is not proper because the Opposite Parties  have activated the service on the aforesaid SIMs of the complainant w.e.f. 27.10.2014. However, the complainant could not produce any evidence to prove that the Opposite Parties  activated the services on the aforesaid 4 SIMs of the complainant from 27.10.2014. The complainant has nowhere mentioned in the complaint that on which date and month, he applied for the services of the aforesaid SIMs of the Opposite Parties  and on which date he received the SIMs and the services on the aforesaid 4 SIMs from the Opposite Parties. The form of plan submitted by the complainant Ex.C8 is undated. So, the complainant has failed to prove on record that the services were got activated on the aforesaid four SIMs by the complainant on 27.10.2014, whereas the Opposite Parties  have categorically stated that the services on the aforesaid four SIMs were started from 5.10.2014 and the bill Ex.C2 dated 6.11.2014 for the period from 5.10.2014 to 4.11.2014 for Rs.1932.95 paisa is quite genuine and as per the computerized generated data because all the calls/ SMS, etc. are captured in the computerized billing system of the Opposite Parties  only when a voice service/ SMS/ VAS is used by the subscriber. The complainant could not point out any defect in this bill Ex.C2, but the complainant did not pay the amount of this bill despite the fact that Opposite Parties  made so many calls and sent SMS to the complainant to deposit the amount of the aforesaid bill Ex.C2, with the Opposite Parties. Rather the complainant without making the payment of the aforesaid bill, went on availing the services of the Opposite Parties  on the aforesaid four SIMs. Then the Opposite Parties  issued another bill to the complainant dated 5.10.2014 Ex.C3 for Rs.5992.62 paisa payable on 24.12.2014. But even then, the complainant did not deposit the amount of the bill with the Opposite Parties  despite so many requests made by the Opposite Parties  on telephone as well as through SMS, to the complainant. Opposite Parties  stopped the outgoing service on the aforesaid SIMs of the complainant and then, the complainant deposited Rs.4100/- with the Opposite Parties  vide receipt Ex.C6/A dated 6.6.2015 and the complainant applied for disconnection of one telephone connection  No.98884-97020. Then the Opposite Parties started the service on the 3 SIMS of the complainant and disconnected  the services on one mobile SIM bearing No. 98884-97020 on the request of the complainant. But even thereafter, the complainant did not deposit the amount of the bills to the Opposite Parties regarding the services he has utilized on the aforesaid SIMs. The complainant has produced only one receipt regarding the payment of Rs.4100/- only which is dated 6.6.2014 Ex.C6/A. No other receipt the complainant could produce on record to prove that he has been making the regular payments of the bills, to the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the plea of the complainant that Opposite Parties  have issued excessive bill and that is why he had not paid the bill, is not tenable because the complainant could  produce only one receipt of Rs.4100/- Ex.C6/A regarding the payment of services availed by the complainant on the aforesaid four SIMs and after some time, of three SIMs, for about 8 months i.e. from 5.10.2014 to 6.6.2015.
9.    Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the  complainant.
10. Resultantly, we hold that  the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 02.02.2016.                                                             (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                     President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                                  Member                         Member