Date of Filing: 16/09/2015
Date of Order: 25/09/2017
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and prays for the relief to restrain the O.P permanently from collecting the alleged sum of Rs.2,09,662.96 towards the highly inflated bill and to issue the revised bill. Further complainant also prayed for Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to an extent of Rs.25,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is working in private company in Bangalore and was using mobile Nos. 9972198910 and 9900630142 bearing relation No.1161780471 which was issued by O.P.No.1 in Bangalore. It is stated that complainant opted for the plan (My plan family 799) in which other family members of the complainant were covered and had the total monthly credit of Rs.11,700/-. The complainant and her husband were using the numbers 9972198910 and 9900630142 as prepaid numbers for many years and later they migrated both numbers to postpaid to avail the benefit of family plan in the year 2015 and making regular monthly payment to the O.P.No.1. Complainant states that in the month of May 2015 complainant had to travel to Japan and called upon customer care of O.P.No.1 asking them to activate roaming facility/pack. The customer care personnel did not bother to ask and neglected to inform the complainant whether she would like to activate the international data pack to as the data service would remain activate even if the complainant’s visits abroad. It is stated that the complainant being unaware of telecom facility he was under impression that the data service if any would automatically gets discontinued till she return back to India. Further states that, the customer care personnel of O.P.No.1 did not informed the complainant about such services and the International running pack, so the complainant did not get the international data roaming service activated during the travel duration. During the travel period the complainant hardly made any calls or received calls on her mobile phone as international roaming charges were being very expensive. The complainant travelled to Japan between May 2015 to July 2015.
3. On 1.7.2015 the complainant received a SMS from O.P.No.1 informing that the bill generated was of Rs.1,84,561/- and asked the complainant to send SMS as YES to continue to enjoy the services. The husband of complainant immediately approached the customer care department of O.P.No.1 and sought for clarification about the bill and also written an email to customer care department on 10.7.2015. The complainant states that credit limit set by the O.P.No.1 for the complainant and her family members was of Rs.11,700/- per month and O.P.No.1 and its officials were duty bound inform the complainant in case the billing was about to surpass the said credit limit on or before the billing period of the complainant. So that, she would discontinue the data service to avoid alleging billing of Rs.2,09,662.96. The O.Ps willfully neglected to perform their part of obligations. Further the complainant states that O.P.No.1 on 1st July 2015 suo moto activated the international data roaming pack (IR plan @Rs.599 for 10 days) without bothering/ awaiting to take any verbal or written instruction from the complainant. Hence it is ample clear that O.Ps realized their mistake and to avoid further escalation of billings had done that but failed to revise the billing. Thereafter the complainant got issued the legal notice to the O.Ps alleging to revise the bills but O.Ps neither responded nor revised the bills. Hence this complaint
4. Upon issuance of notice O.P No.1 to 4 entered their appearance through their counsel and filed its version. In the version it is contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant not approached this Forum with clean hands. It is contended that, on 1.5.2015 at the request of the complainant O.Ps have activated international roaming facility to the mobile number of the complainant bearing No.9972198910 and submitted upon activations of the international roaming facility they assess internet data usage also would get activated by default. The fact was clearly appraised to the complainant when she sought for activation of international roaming facility. Further contended that if all the subscribers does not require the activation of internet facility such subscriber is required to turn off the data usage in his mobile otherwise when the subscriber is in roaming and if the data usage is turned on even if the subscriber is not using the internet facility, the background application supported by data facility would run automatically and subscriber is an international roam the tariff would be on higher side and the bill would be issued as per the tariff of service provider, in which the subscriber is logged in during the relevant period. The complainant utilized the internet facility to the maximum extent i.e. 277 MB the cost of which was Rs.1,84,561/- The O.Ps after noticing the exorbitant usage of internet facility cautioned the complainant to turn off the data mode. Further O.Ps contended that, when the facility is activated at the request of subscriber the same cannot be deactivated without the option of such subscriber and as per the usage the Bill dated 3.7.2015 for Rs.2,09,662.96 was issued which was payable on or before 21.7.2015. The complainant did not make the payment of the said bill the charges levied was at Rs.6.50 per 10 KB. The complainant consumed approximately 277 MB of data at international roaming. O.P.s contended that there is no negligence on their part. Hence O.Ps denying all other allegation made in the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and also heard the arguments.
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration is:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
7. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B): In the Negative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No. (A) & (B):-
8. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is not in dispute that, that the complainant is the customer of the O.Ps and utilized their services. It is also not in dispute that the complainant when travel to Japan during the month of May 2015 to July 2015 and utilized the roaming services to his mobile number from the O.Ps.
9. The sole allegation of the complainant is that he has not used much service of the O.Ps during international tour but he had hardly made any calls or received calls to her mobile phone as the international roaming charges being very expensive. It is alleged that the O.Ps generated the exorbitant bill for Rs.1,84,661/- and as per the complainant to send a SMS to continue the servicing charges. Thereafter complainant approached the customer care department of the O.P No.1 and sought clarification.
10. Per-contra O.Ps contended that, complainant utilized the facility is activity at her request and same cannot be deactivated without the option of such subscriber. As per the usage the bill dated 3.7.2015 for Rs.2,09,662.96 was issued which was payable on or before 21.7.2015 for the complainant did not make the payment of the said bill as such bill dated 3.82015 was issued for Rs.2,11,700.53 inclusive of the previous balance. It is contended that the bills are issued in accordance with usage made by the complainant as stated above and she consumed approximately 277 M.B of data at international roaming the charges are levied at 6.50 per 10 KB and hence contended that complainant cannot blame the O.P as there is no deficiency from their part and therefore complainant is not entitled for any relief. It is also contended that, such subscriber is required to turn off the data usage in his mobile otherwise when the subscriber is in roaming and if the data usage is turned on even if the subscriber is not using the internet facility, the background application supported by data facility would run automatically and subscriber is an international roaming tariff would be on higher side and the bill would be issued as per the tariff of service provider, in which the subscriber is logged in during the relevant period.
11. On perusing the pleading as well as the evidence filed by the complainant she has not stated anything whether she is turned off her roaming facility i.e. data usage, when the mobile is not using the for the roaming facility. In the absence of the evidence it is deemed that the data used without turning off the data usage and it is continued one. Hence, the allegations of the complainant is lame of strength and holds no water.
12. The O.P being a service provider to look into the matter as goodwill of gesture to reduce the exorbitant bill to retain the customer at their liberty. On perusing the bills Ex.1 it comes from the usage of data and complainant cannot be believed in the absence of the evidence to the effect that the data usage is turned off while not in use. On the basis of available evidence on record. As per the record the complainant consume the data to an extent of 277 MB the charges fixed for Rs.6.50 per 10 KB. It is worth to note that 1000 KB is equal to 1 MB, when it is calculated it comes to 277000 KB it approximately cross Rs.1,80,000/- and hence we find no fault with the O.Ps. In the light of the above discussion we reached to conclusion that complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and hence complainant is not entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint. Accordingly, we answered the Points (A) and (B) in the Negative.
POINT No. (C):
13. On the basis of answering the Points (A) & (B) in the Negative, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint hereby is dismissed. No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 25th Day of September 2017)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
