Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/90/2021

R.Mohamed Shabir - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s K.R. Neelambar

05 May 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:26.04.2021

  Date of Reservation     :18.04.2023

  Date of Order              :05.05.2023

 

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.90/2021

FRIDAY,THE 5^th DAY OF MAY 2023

 

R.Mohamed Shabir,

S/o. A. Abdul Rahim,

Old No.AI-124, New No.AI-24,

8^th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.                                                      ..  Complainant.

-Vs-

 

M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited,

Rep by its General Manager,

Having its registered office at

No.101, Bharathi Towers,

Santhome High Road,

Santhome, Chennai 600 004.                                         .. Opposite Party.

* * * * *

 

Counsel for the Complainant        : M/s. K.R. Neelambar,

                                                       V.S. Ghousibanu, J. Mohammed Arif

 

Counsel for Opposite Party           : P.J. Rishikesh, P.J.Sriganesh,

                        M. Jayaprakash, Agil Vatchalam, P. Elakkiya

 

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the counsel for Complainant and the counsel for the Opposite Party this Commission delivered the following:

 

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

(i)     The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to restore the services immediately on phone number 9677030183 and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards the act of negligence and unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service, career opportunities and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- compensation towards sufferings and mental agony caused to the Complainant.

I.    The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.      The Complainant is a customer of Bharti Airtel Limited, the Opposite Party herein with the mobile number 9677030183. The Complainant needing to make ISD calls to Australia during November 2019 enquired the Opposite Party. The customer service told the Complainant about a discounted rate tariff called "Umbrelia Pack" in which Complainant will be charged only Rs.3/- per minute to make calls to the Australia country who promised that no other additional charges or different ways of charging were told to the Complainant to make calls to the said country.

2.     Believing the words of the Opposite Party he made calls to Australia during November 2019. Since the Complainant is a post-paid subscriber, he received bill later that month on 12^th of November 2019. The Complainant was in shock and surprise to find that he has not been charged discounted rate of Rs.3/- but had been charged Rs.180/- per minute. The Complainant felt deceived and tricked into a Tariff when he received a bill of Rs.37,781/-.

3.     The Complainant submitted that he visited the Opposite Party's office at the above said address on 19th November 2019 and made a complaint vide token number 31-2665841974019. Instead of providing a solution to the grievance, the Opposite Party insisted to pay the bill first. The Complainant further submitted that the persons from the Opposite Party have been constantly calling and harassing the Complainant to pay the bill first. The Complainant paid an approximate bill amount of Rs.2000/- on 12^th  February 2020 towards undisputed billing cycles of December of 2019, January and February of 2020. The same also has been acknowledged by the Opposite Party.

4.     The Complainant submitted that the Australia country code +61 will allow calling Australia from another country. Australia international dialing +61 is followed by an area code. Any man of common sense cannot be expected to call just an ISD code and not dial area codes after that. Example, +91 is the ISD code for India, 44 is the area code for Chennai. It would be like a telecommunication company informs a subscriber that discount call tariff to India +91 is Rs.3/-, but later the Opposite Party, telecommunication company denying giving discount reasoning that the subscriber called Chennai +9144 instead of India.

5.     The Complainant submitted that the Opposite Party explaining Complainant to make calls to Australia at a discounted tariff but charging higher for Australia area codes is a huge deficiency in Service. Moreover, the Opposite Party is avoiding to inform the Complainant in writing as per TRAI within a week of the tariff plan, it shows the Opposite Party's purposeful provide wrong and deceitfulness service towards the Complainant.

6.     After several attempts of personal visits, negotiation, communication in writing, had constrained to send a legal notice dated 18.05.2020 to Opposite Party which was received and acknowledged by the Opposite Party on 21.05.2020. The Opposite Party had not given any solution for the disputed bill or restored his incoming/outgoing service till date.

7.     The Complainant submitted that the said mobile number 9677030183 is held by him for more than 11 years and had paid invoice consistently, and many of his family relations, friends and past work colleagues from India, USA, and Australia has this number to reach him in future, and Complainant may not have all their numbers to update changes in numbers.

8.     Due to disconnection of his mobile number, he is out of reach, and  had lost good job opportunities from Australia for past one year. This has resulted in loss of minimum of 10-20 lakhs rupees based on past work experience with Australian Firms.

9.     The Complainant submitted that due to the negligent act and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party is deficiency of service under Consumer Protection Act. The Opposite Party is liable to compensate the same. The Complainant is entitled to get reversing charges of the disputed bill at promised tariff of Rs.3/-, restoring his services on phone number 9677030183 and also entitled for compensation towards mental agony, harassment, loss of contacts, financial loss and health. Hence, the above Complaint.

 

II. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:

 

10.    The Opposite Party is one of the India's leading business groups. They have been a pioneering force in the telecom sector with many firsts and innovations to its credit. Being one of the global telecommunication company it ensures the quality service and customized solutions to its customers.

11.     On November 2019, the Complainant enquired with the Airtel Customer Service regarding ISD calls to Australia. The Airtel Customer Service provided all the details and also informed the customer/Complainant about a discounted rate tariff called "Umbrella Pack" The enquiry was to a particular country Australia, wherein the same tariff chart was also provided by them to the Complainant.

12.      Their Customer Care Executive clearly conveyed the tariff details of Umbrella 1SD Pack to the Complainant. The customer/Complainant was very well explained about the pack details. The relevant portion of the Umbrella Pack is extracted below:

ISD RATES COUNTRY WISE (WITH UMBREALLA PACK)

COUNTRY NAME	AREA CODE	ISD RATES	AFTE PACK REDUCED CALL RATES
Australia	61	12	3
Australia	6113	180	180
Australia	6114	180	180
Australia	614	12	7

 

The above shown chart provided by them clearly distinguishes the ISD call rates and after pack reduced call rates along with the country name and area code under this Umbrella pack, the customer was given reduced call rates. The customer/Complainant was clearly informed that when dialling to +613 or +614 the same would be charged at Rs.180/- per minute under this ISD Umbrella Pack. There was no manual interference in the invoice generation. Hence, without any additional cost or hidden charges the Complainant is liable to pay the bill amount of Rs.37,781/-.

13.      The tariff details were given to the customer along with brief details based on the customer request. The Complainant has made all the calls to +611, +613 and +614 where the discount will not be applicable, which can be seen from the table extracted above. Without properly going through the tariff chart the Complainant has made a blunder and now escaping without paying the amount of Rs. 37,781/- which is due and payable.

14.        Australia is geographically divided into four large areas, most of which cover more than one state and/or territory. All local telephone numbers within these four areas are of eight digits, consisting (mainly) of a four-digit exchange code plus a four-digit number. The Australian country code is +61. When calling from outside Australia, we have to leave out the leading '0' from the STD area code or from the mobile telephone number. Fixed line, example calling Canberra from outside Australia: +61 2 (local eight-digit number), Australia uses eight-digit local phone numbers preceded by a two-digit STD area code. If calling a mobile phone from outside Australia, you would dial +61 followed by an area code and the 8-digit mobile number. Hence, the chart provided by the airtel customer service clearly shows the area code and rate.

15.         The Complainant has made 4 calls to a number 0061 131272' which was charged Rs. 180/min because the area code +61(13) under the umbrella package clearly denotes the same amount. Therefore, by taking a look at the calls made by the Complainant, it is clear that there have been no hidden charges from their end.

16.       The sum claimed by the Complainant for a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- towards the act of negligence and Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the mental agony and Rs. 5,00,000/- towards deficiency of service/ career opportunities caused by the Opposite Party is exorbitant and unreasonable and hence its denied and there was no deficiency in their service. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

III.       The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and Written Arguments, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A9. The Opposite Party had submitted its proof affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Opposite Party documents were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-5.

IV.  Points for Consideration:-

 

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

POINT NO. 1 :-

17.       The contention of the Complainant is that he is the customer of the Opposite Party having Mobile NO.9677030183. On enquiry from the Opposite Party he was told that at a discounted rate under the “Umbrella Pack” he will be charged only Rs.3 per minute to make calls to the Australian Country. Believing the words of the Opposite Party he made calls to Australia during November 2019 and was shocked to receive a bill of Rs.37,781/- for the month of November 2019. When he contacted the Opposite Party they insisted to pay the bill, for which he has paid an approximate bill amount of Rs.2,000/- on 12.02.2020 towards undisputed bills for the month of December 2019, January and February 2020. The Opposite Party on 26.01.2020 had stated that for the calls to +61 under the Umbrella Pack the charges will be at a reduced rate of Rs.3 per minute but as the Complainant had done calls to +611 and +614 where discount is not applicable he has been charged a standard call tariff of Rs.180 per minute. Further contended that as per the directions of the Telecom Authority of India the service providers shall inform its customers in writing within a week of activation of service, the complete details of the Tariff plan. The changes in any item / aspect of Tariff in the chosen package shall also be intimated to the customers in writing. The Opposite Party explaining the Complainant to make calls to Australia at a discounted tariff but charging higher for Australia area codes and avoiding to inform him in writing as per the directions of the TRAI within a week of the Tariff plan the Opposite Party had committed deficiency in service.

18.         The Opposite Party contended that they have provided all the details and also informed the Complainant about a discounted tariff called “Umbrella Pack”. Under the Umbrella Pack the Complainant was given reduced call rates the Complainant was informed that when dialling to +6113 or +6114 the charges would  be at Rs.180 per minute under the ISD Umbrella Pack. There was no manual interference in the invoice generation. The Complainant has made call to +611, +6113 and +6114 where discount will not be applicable and hence the Complainant is liable to pay the bill amount of Rs.37,781/-.

19.        Upon perusal of Ex-A-1 it is seen that the Complainant had received a bill from the Opposite Party in the month of November 2019 for a sum of Rs.37,781.24 which amount was disputed by the Complainant stating that the Complainant ought to have charged for the calls made by him to Australia at a discounted rate of Rs.3/- under the Umbrella Pack. As per Ex.A-2 the Opposite Party by their mail dated 26.01.2020 on the complaint of the Complainant has stated that “I would like to inform you that the charges we have explained which are valid there is no issue found from Airtel end. You have asked about ISD services & tariffs and you have confirmed the ISD code(+61) for Australia & informed the charges Rs.12/min after opting for umbrella pack charges will be reduced to Rs.3/min but you have done the calls to +6113 and +614 where discount is not applicable hence you have been charged standard call tariff Rs.180/- per minute”.

20.        Further as per Ex.B-1 the ISD rates country wise with (umbrella pack) for Australia is extracted here under:

        ISD RATES COUNTRY WISE (WITH UMBREALLA PACK)

COUNTRY NAME	AREA CODE	ISD CALL RATES	AFTER PACK REDUCED CALL RATES
Australia	61	12	3
Australia	6113	180	180
Australia	6114	180	180
Australia	614	12	7

 

21.     A perusal of Ex.B-1, Ex.B-5 would show that the ISD rate for Australia with area code +6113, +6114 is at Rs.180/- per minute. Accordingly the Opposite Party had charged rates for the calls made by the Complainant and the itemised statement of the Complainant’s mobile bill is Ex.B-4.

22.      As regards the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party had not given in writing about the tariff plan as per the directions of the TRAI, the Complainant has not provided any documents to show that he had sought for the tariff plan and the same was denied by the Opposite Party. Further contended that the Opposite Party had disconnected his mobile due to which his business got affected and he had incurred a huge loss and that he was not able to keep in touch by loosing all contacts which allegations are not supported by documentary evidence. The Complainant relied upon the letter issued by the TRAI in reply to the information sought by the Complainant, wherein TRAI has directed the Telecom Service Providers to provide an informed choice to the consumers and provide full and complete Tariff brochure on the websites. It is for the Complainant to verify the tariff details from the Opposite Party and makes calls accordingly. Having availed the services from the Opposite Party, the Complainant cannot absolve from his liability in payment of bill amount by blaming the Opposite Party for charging excessive bill when the Opposite Party had charged as per the tariff rate.

23.       On discussions made above and in the given facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that the ISD rate for Australia with area code +6113 and +6114 was charged at Rs.180/- per minute. As the Complainant had made calls to Australia with area code +6113, the Opposite Party had charged as per the rate prescribed. As per the tariff the Opposite Party had generated the bill for the Month of November 2019 which the Complainant failed to make payment and seeks for restoration of the Mobile connection which cannot be granted.  Admittedly the Complainant did not pay the bill amount for his mobile connection unless and until the bill amount is paid by the Complainant restoration of services to mobile No.9677030183 cannot be made by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has failed to prove that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency in service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos. 2 and 3 :-

24.       As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are  answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 5^th of  May 2023.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	12.11.2019	Airtel November bill (the disputed bill)
Ex.A2	26.11.2020	E-mail from Ex.A3	17.02.2020	Acknowledgement of bill paid
Ex.A4	18.05.2020	Legal Notice sent by the Complainant and acknowledgement
Ex.A5	19.01.2021	RTI reply of the said TRAI letter
Ex.A6	20.03.2021	Email proof from Complainant Ex-Colleague
Ex.A7		Salary Slip
Ex.A8	25.01.2020	e-mail sent by the Complainant to the Nodal Officer of the Opposite Parties requesting proof for giving information to me regarding rate tariff
Ex.A9	26.01.2020	E-mail sent by the Complainant to the Nodal Team of the Opposite Parties requesting to provide the voice recording call

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

Ex.B1		ISD rates country wise (umbrella Pack)
Ex.B2		Umbrella Pack details
Ex.B3		ISD Umbrella 50 Pack – chart
Ex.B4		Itemized Statement provided by the Opposite Party to the Complainant
Ex.B5		ISD rates - Australia

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT