IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 264/08 DATED 04-11-2008<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant B.Siddaramappa, S/o Late Basappa, R/at D.No.1212, K Block, I Cross, Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore-570023.<br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. The Regional Officer, M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Regional Office, No.55, Divyashree Towers, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560029.<br /> 2. The Manager, M/s Bharati Airtel Ltd., Mysore Trade Centre, Bangalore-Neeligiri Road, Opp. Suburban Bus Stand, Mysore-570001.<br /> (By Sri.B.J.Mahesh., Advocate for O.P.s)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 28.08.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 24.09.2008<br /> Date of order : 04.11.2008<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 10 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant in brief against the opposite parties is that he is possessing two mobile phones bearing Airtel No.9880041407 and 9845943643 of the opposite parties and has been promptly paying the monthly bills. That he received bill of the second mobile number dated 19.07.2008 for the period from 17.06.2008 to 16.07.2008 and found a sum of Rs.150/- was charged by the opposite parties towards the 5 messages alleged to had been sent through the said phone. That he has not sent any messages through his phone, but the opposite parties have charged him illegally through bills commencing from 19.03.2008 till 19.07.2008 charging him for Rs.623.05 for total 19 messages. Before paying the bill amount for the period from 17.06.2008 till 16.07.2008 he made a compliant to the opposite parties who assured to look into, but they did not do so, on the contrary pressurized him to make the payment. The opposite party however, registered the complaint and sent him messages that they will be back, but they did not respond similarly he gave few more complaints but received the same messages, Finally on 19.08.2008 the opposite parties sent a message to him to pay Rs.531/- accordingly he paid that amount on 20.08.2008. He again on 20.08.2008 was informed the receipt of payment of Rs.531/- made by him, That he was asked to pay Rs.531/- though the bill amount was Rs.1,037.26. On 27.08.2008 he received a bill dated 19.08.2008 where in the opposite parties claimed a sum of Rs.1035.376 being the previous balance, even though the bill dated 19.07.2008 shown an amount of Rs.1,037/.26. No explanation what so ever was offered for its difference. Though, he had paid Rs.531/- as against Rs.1,037.26 only a sum of Rs.505.62 has been adjusted. The said bill further disclosed that again towards the alleged 3 messages a sum of Rs.90/- + tax of Rs.11.12 has been charged even though no message was sent. Therefore, the complainant attributing deficiency against the opposite parties in sending bills to him claiming SMS charges though he has not sent any SMS has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to refund his waived charges Rs.724.17 being the message amount charged and to award Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and to award cost.<br /> 2. The first and second opposite parties have filed their version through their advocate admitting extension of two mobile telephone services to the complainant, have further contended that the complainant had availed a facility known as “Value Added Service (VAS)” w.e.f. 05.03.2008 and that service was activated to the mobile phone of the complainant at his option and that service would be charged at Rs.30 per week and that the subscriber would always had liberty to deactivate such facility at his end. In the instant case, the complainant got that facility activated and charges of Rs.30 per week has been claimed from him through bills under the head of “Other SMS”. The complainant after availing that facility paid the bills dated 19.03.2008, 19.04.2008, 19.05.2008 and 19.06.2008 without any protest though in those bills they had claimed charges for the said VAS facility. The complainant only after receipt of the bill dated 19.07.2008 has disputed the bill charges. They have clearly explained to the complainant about the charges and he was also informed to get the facility deactivated if he is not interest to continue. Further considering that the complainant is their long standing customer as a good will measure he was given rebate in certain bills and accordingly he has made payments. The complainant did not opt to get the service deactivated therefore the bill was sent to him on 19.08.2008 charging Rs.90/- as 3 weekly charges and the complainant got deactivated the facility only from the month of August 2008, therefore claiming to have charged the complainant for VAS, he had availed and denying any deficiency in their service have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. During the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Prasanth for the opposite parties have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced certain bills issued by the opposite parties. Opposite parties have produced an extract of VAS availed by the complainant to his mobile phone and copies of certain bills sent to the complainant. Heard the complainant who is in person and the counsel for the opposite parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service in charging him for SMS charges though he had not sent any SMS through his phone?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no.:- The claim of the complainant that he has availed two mobile phone Airtel services from the opposite parties as detailed in the complaint is admitted by the opposite parties. But, the claim of the complainant that the opposite parties have charged SMS charges in the bills sent in connection with use of his mobile phone NO.9845943643 though he has not sent any SMS has been explained by the opposite parties without disputing the contention of the complainant that he has not sent any SMS through his above said mobile phone, and have contended that the complainant availed VAS w.e.f. 05.03.2008 and he also got activated his mobile for that service and under that scheme, the subscriber shall be charged at Rs.30/- per week and therefore, have stated that they have only charged the complainant in he having had availed VAS only and not for SMS charges.<br /> 7. The opposite parties have produced an extract of the details of service provided to mobile phone No.9845943643 possessed by the complainant to substantiate the contention in their having extended value added service to the complainant through that phone number, the request date, time and also the date, month and time of activation of the VAS and therefore have stated as per this scheme, the subscriber is liable to pay Rs.30 per week. The opposite parties have also sworn to these facts in their affidavit evidence. The complainant has not denied the entries of these documents, the date, month and year and extension value added service and its usage. The opposite parties have further stated in their version and also in their affidavit, it is the option of the subscriber to avail such special service and if he do not want to continue the scheme they can opt for deactivation of the said scheme and have further stated that despite informing the complainant to get facility deactivated if he is not willing to continue. It is stated that the complainant only got it deactivated in the month of August 2008. It is thus clear that the complainant has not denied the availment and using of this special facility and the fact that he got that facility deactivated from the month of August 2008. The contention of the opposite parties further that the complainant who availed the special service without any protest has paid the bills dated 19.03.2008, 19.04.2008, 19.05.2008 and 19.06.2008 has not been controverted and rebutted by the complainant. Thus, it is evident from the extract that the opposite parties have filed that the complainant availed VAS to his mobile phone from 03.05.2008 at 16.07.02.0 hours and that the same was activated on the same day at 18 hours, 46 mints., 5 sec., and that facility would expire on 01.08.2008. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant who availed the value added service facility w.e.f. 03.05.2008 got deactivated in the month for August 2008. The bills further prove that what is charged against the complainant is not SMS charges, but it is the minimum charges for extending VAS facility. The contention of the opposite parties that scheme of VAS is chargeable at Rs.30/- per week has not been contradicted by the complainant. The opposite parties in their version and also in their affidavit evidence have explained that heading SMS and others shown in the bills is not the SMS charges, but it is the weekly charges payable towards the special facility availed. It is also found from the bill of 19.03.2008, the complainant was charged Rs.60/- shown to be for 2 weeks and in the bill of 19.04.2008, the complainant is shown to have been charged Rs.150/-, which is minimum fee of 5 weeks. Similarly in the other bills upto July 2008, the complainant is charged for the minimum charges payable for having availed the special facility and not the charges levied that for having sent any messages through that phone.<br /> 8. The complainant in the complaint and in the affidavit evidence has stated as if he had lodged several complaints with the opposite parties with regard to the alleged eratic bills sent by them and the opposite parties who had sent him messages that they will be back to him did not respond and further stated that the opposite parties who had sent bills for Rs.1,037.26 reduced to Rs.531/- without any justification for which the opposite parties have come forward with an explanation that as and when the complainant represented them with regard to higher rates claimed in the bill they, considering this, complainant is one of their long standing customer stated to have given certain rebates and thereby have explained the reasons which prompted them to reduce the bill amounts. This the contention of the opposite parties has not been controverted by the complainant. Further, the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant has without any protest paid the bill amount up to June 2008 lends supports to their contention that the complainant who had availed the special facility to his mobile phone paid the bill charges during the relevant months, without getting it deactivated, instead has come up with this complaint questioning the bill of July 2008, which under these circumstances in our view a cannot be sustained. The complainant who had willingly availed VAS facility is liable to pay the charges of that facility and that cannot be termed as SMS charges, and we find that the contention of the opposite parties has not been rebutted by the complainant and therefore the bills they had sent to the complainant claiming VAS facility charges cannot be held to be deficient. Hence, we find no merits in the complaint and as the result the same is liable to be dismissed by answering point no.1 in the negative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs. <br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 4th October 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />