BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 63 of 2015
Date of institution: 13.02.2015
Date of Decision: 23.07.2015
Jaspal Gir son of Mohinder Gir, resident of village Shampur, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Idea Cellular Limited, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali through its Managing Director/Officer Incharge/Principal Officer.
2. Managing Director/Officer Incharge/Principal Officer, M/s. Idea Cellular Limited, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ARGUMENTS HEARD AND DECIDED BY THE CORAM
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Ms. Rameet Bakshi, counsel for the OPs.
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member)
ORDER
The complainant filed the present complaint pleading that he is availing the post paid services of the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) by using mobile connection No.98222-62866. He alleged that the OPs are demanding illegal amount of Rs.3293.02 vide bill dated 16.01.2015 on the basis of ISD calls which were never made by him. He neither opted for ISD facility nor gave his consent to issue ISD facility to him. He further alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as they have allowed someone to make ISD calls from his number/connection without his consent and, therefore, caused mental agony and harassment to him for which the OPs are liable to compensate to him. Lastly he prayed to this Forum to direct the OPs to:
i) withdraw the demand of Rs.3293/- from the bill dated 16.01.2015.
ii) pay him Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.
iii) pay him Rs.10,000/- on account of costs of litigation.
2. After service of notice upon the OPs, the OPs appeared through counsel and filed reply to the complaint taking preliminary objections that the complainant is availing service by executing the necessary documents on 14.03.2014 with the OPs. The complainant has opted for idea monthly plan 159. The Tariff Plan and Supplementary Services Form was duly signed by the complainant without any security deposit (refundable) and there was no need to request for the same as the same is part of the tariff plan subscribed by the complainant himself. When the complainant contacted the OPs on receipt of invoice dated 16.01.2015 for an amount of Rs.3819.71 then the Customer Care Department of the Ops duly reverted and informed the complainant that ISD charges have been correctly charged as CDR was generated for the same. The total amount of Rs.8,294.00 is due towards complainant as per bill dated 16th March, 2015. On merits, the Ops replied in para No.1 of the reply that the number used by the complainant is 98722-62866 and not 9822262866 as mentioned by the complainant. In reply to Para No.9 of the complaint the OPs stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part as it was not possible for anybody to use the phone of the complainant when it was neither lost nor stolen. The OPs stated that perusal of the call detail records of the complainant, it is clearly evident that IMEI No.1 remains the same throughout irrespective of the fact that the calls made by the complainant are local/STD/ISD which proves that calls have been made through same handset. The Ops denied that they allowed someone to make ISD calls from his phone without his consent. The complainant voluntarily defaulted in payment outstanding mobile bill to the OPs which in turn leads to temporary disconnection of mobile number as such due to his own fault. The OPs denied all the allegations made by the complainant against them and lastly the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-7.
4. Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Manoj Madan, their authorised representative Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-12.
5. We have heard complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs have also gone through written arguments filed by them.
6. The main points involved in this complaint are:
i) Whether the OPs provided ISD facility without complainant’s consent?
ii) Whether the complainant never made ISD calls?
iii) Whether the OPs allowed somebody else to make calls through the connection of the complainant?
iv) Whether the complainant is entitled to relief as per his prayer clause?
7. In this complaint, it is admitted fact that the complainant is consumer and the OPs are service provider to him. The complainant has mentioned his connection number 9822262866 instead of 9872262866. When complainant received the copy of reply to the complaint, then he should have made an application to get it corrected or should have withdrawn this complaint with a permission from this Forum to file a fresh complaint with correct mobile number. However, this observation is hypertechnical and, therefore, being a typographical mistake may be ignored in the interest of justice. Further, the complainant has alleged that he has never consented to ISD facility. To rebut this, the OPs have placed on record Tariff Plan and Supplementary Service Form which is Ex.OP-1 (Page No.12). In this form, name of the plan is mentioned as 159 Plan and ISD charges are mentioned as standard. It is signed by Jaspal Singh on 14.03.2014. However, during oral arguments the complainant denied his signatures but he has not objected to these documents when they were being tendered in evidence by the OPs or even thereafter. So simple denial during arguments is not enough unless he has filed his affidavit to this effect or otherwise proves it in any manner. So in view of this document, it cannot be said that ISD facility is provided to the complainant without his consent. Hence, it is observed that ISD facility is not provided without complainant’s consent.
8. Secondly the complainant has alleged that he never made ISD calls. The complainant failed to prove this fact in any manner whereas the OPs proved through copy of the extract of the CDRs of the complainant which is Ex.OP-10 that IMEI (i.e. International Mobile Equipment Identity Number) and the IMSI No.( i.e. Instrument Mobile Subscriber Identity Number) remained the same throughout irrespective of the fact that the calls made by the complainant were local/STD/ISD which further proves the fact that calls have been made through the same handset. The complainant has neither objected to this document nor disproved it in any manner. So complaint’s stand that he never used ISD call facility is without any substance and cannot be appreciated. Hence it is also held that the complainant failed to prove that he never made ISD calls.
9. Thirdly, the complainant alleged that the OPs allowed someone else to use/make ISD calls from his connection but failed to prove it in any manner. There is not an iota of evidence to this effect on record. So it is held that that the Ops had not allowed somebody else to make ISD calls from his connection. Hence, it is also held that the complainant had failed to prove this fact.
10. In view of above discussion, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as he has miserably failed to prove his complaint and hence it is dismissed. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
July 23, 2015.
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Presiding Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
