Haryana

Karnal

CC/99/2019

Ajay Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Idea Cellular Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Manglora

03 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 99 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.22.02.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 03.01.2020

 

Ajay Singh son of Shri Shamsher Singh, resident of House no.553, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. M/s Idea Cellular Company, through its Managing Director, Vodafone Idea Limited, Anantraj Tech. Park, 5^th floor, plot no.1, Sec.22, Panchkula 134 116 (Haryana).

2. M/s Star Communication, authorized dealer of Idea Company, DSS-152, Sector 7, HUDA Market, Karnal.

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Sanjeev Manglora Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Rahul Bali Advocate for opposite party  no.1.

                   Opposite party no.2 exparte.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that OP no.1 is running the business of Mobile Communication under the name and style of Idea Cellular Company and OP no.2 is the authorized dealer of Idea Company. Complainant is having Mobile alongwith two Post Paid Sim Cards of Idea Company bearing no.9466623444 and 9466367640 and the bill of the said mobile numbers comes to Rs.700/- per month approximately. The complainant had to go to abroad in Thailand and the complainant was in need Roaming/Outgoing service on the said numbers for three days i.e.20.11.2018 to 22.11.2018 and for this purpose the complainant contacted the OP no.2 on 19.11.2018 and received the information in this regard. The OP had charged Rs.2000/- as security and Rs.1799/- for the package expenses from the complainant. OP no.2 had not given any receipt in this regard. After ten days the incoming all was stopped of the said number. The complainant visited the office of OP no.2 and enquired about the matter, then complainant came to know from the official of the OP no.2 regarding the excess bill, due to which the call has been stopped. The same will be restarted after depositing some amount in this account. Then the complainant again deposited a sum of Rs.1300/- in the said connection for the continuation of the said number. Thereafter, the complainant shocked to know when the complainant received an e-mail message from the company regarding the pending amount of Rs.5904/-. Complainant visited the office of the OPs and came to know that the company has activated the International Roaming on the said numbers but did not install the package on the said connection, due to this OP no.2 have grabbed the amount of Rs.1799/- of the complainant. The official of the OP no.1 told the complainant that only Rs.2000/- was deposited as security for the activation of package and the amount of Rs.1799/- has not been deposited for package. The complainant visited the office of OP so many times for the correction of the bill and for the refund of aforesaid amount, but official/s of the OP postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. The OPs have closed the service on the said mobile so many times and after 21^st January the OPs have closed the service on the said connections of the complainant. Due to this act and conduct of the OPs, complainant is suffering a great loss, mental pain and agony. Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice dated 30.01.2019 through his counsel in this regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version stating therein that the complainant had applied for International roaming and accordingly, the roaming was activated on 20.11.2018 and roaming pack of Rs.149/- per month was activated. As per records of the OP no.1 no security of Rs.2000/- was deposited against the account of the complainant and there is no request regarding the activation of International roaming pack of Rs.1799/-. The OP no.2 shall be in position to revert to the allegations made by the complainant. It is further pleaded that the service of the number of the complainant was barred on 19.01.2019 due to non- payment of the bill raised against the usage by the complainant. As per the account statement of the complainant no payment is deposited after 07.12.2018. It is further stated that under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 the OP no.2 is entitled to disconnect the services without any notice any or all connections of a subscriber for his default in payment of bills of any other connection. The present case is also governed by Mobile Number Portability (MNP) regulations. As per the MNP Regulations the mobile number which is disconnected due to any other reason except payment in that case the said number goes back to the original range holder within 60 days of disconnection as per the amended MNP Regulations, 2015 dated 25.02.2015 wherein the time was reduced to 60 days from 90 days to return the number to donor operator. In the present case the mobile number 9466623444 (originally belonged to BSNL) and as per the MNP Regulations the above mentioned number has been returned to the original range holder automatically on 31.05.2019 and cannot be activated now as it is out of purview of the OP no.1. It is further stated that complainant is registered subscriber of VIL for Haryana Telecom Circle. The VIL nevertheless provides services to its subscribers in foreign countries by virtue of multiple agreements it has entered into with other cellular service providers in other parts of the globe. All such agreements entered by VIL with any foreign service provider, including revenue sharing arrangement has to comply the Rules and Regulations, stipulated by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), who has the authority of supervision  over all such agreements/arrangements. It is further pleaded that as per the company records the complainant has not subscribed any special tariff plan and has subscribed only to International Roaming (IR Pack) for monthly rental of Rs.149/- per month wherein standard charges are applicable during roaming. It is further stated that the terms and conditions detailed on official website which clearly mention that standard international roaming rates shall apply in case of usage without the 1 Roam pack. The complainant was charged as per default or standard International roaming rates of Thailand network and same has been detailed vide bill dated 24.11.2018 and 24.12.2018. It is further stated that at the outset that the entire process of billing followed by VIL is a wholly automated process which involves no manual intervention and same is subject to an audit by TRAI from time to time. Usage is automatically gauged by our VIL’s system for each connection and billed according to the rates applicable for each type of usage (calling, data, roaming packs etc.). Therefore, the bill dated 24.11.2018 and 24.12.2018 only reflects actual usage and nothing more. When a subscriber uses the mobile roaming facilities in different countries, the foreign service providers sends the call charges details to the concerned service provider and accordingly, the same are inserted in the bill raised by the said service provider to the subscriber. In the present case also, VIL has put the details forwarded by the different service providers used by the complainant and accordingly the bill dated 24.11.2018 and 24.12.2018 has been raised on the complainant for connection bearing no.9466623444 and 9466367640 respectively. The complainant has disputed the said bill pertaining to connection bearing no.9466623444 in this regard. It is submitted that the complainant was on International roaming and in international roaming access to information of subscriber’s usages takes 48 hours to 45 days as the information is provided by the international channel partner whose network are used by the subscriber while on Roaming.  It is further stated that the cellular service is provided through automated mechanism, wherein, no manual interference is made. Usage is registered on Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) Card of the subscriber and such usage is metered by automated machines without any manual interference. The complainant has made false, frivolous and baseless allegation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 5.4.2019.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 22.08.2019.

5.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Shikha Sharma Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 18.10.2019.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Complainant is having two postpaid sim card of Idea Company bearing no.9466623444 and 9466367640. As per the version of the complainant he has gone to Thailand and complainant was in need roaming/outgoing service on the said numbers for three days i.e. 20.11.2018 to 22.11.2018. The OP has charged Rs.200/- as security and Rs.1799/- for package expenses from the complainant. After ten days, incoming call was stopped on the said numbers. The complainant has come to know from the office of the OP, regarding the excess bill, due to which the incoming call has been stopped.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that OP neither charged Rs.2000/- as security and Rs.1799/- for package expenses from the complainant. Due to non-payment of bill amount, the service of the complainant’s phone has been stopped. If the complainant wants to restore the service, then he has to clear all the dues.

9.             The complainant has relied upon the terms and conditions for postpaid international roaming packs Ex.C2 and bill Ex.C3. There is no record on the file to prove the version of the complainant that he has deposited Rs.2000/- as security and Rs.1799/- as package expenses. There is also no such application on the file which would show that complainant has requested the OP to activate the international roaming pack on his mobile numbers and thus the OPs are not any fault. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we found no force in the complaint.

10.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated:03.01.2020                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

 

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member