Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/533/2017

Shiv Kumar Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.K. Sood

06 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/533/2017
Date of Institution	:	20/07/2017
Date of Decision	:	06/09/2018

 

Shiv Kumar Sood (Distt. Attorney, Retd.), Advocate, aged 78 years, S/o Late Sh. Badri Parshad Sood, R/o H.No.3139, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s Idea Cellular Limited, SCO 495-498, Sector 35, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Ms. Rameet Bakshi, Counsel for Opposite Party.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that the Complainant, who had to go to New Jersey (USA) from 08.06.2017 to 02.07.2017 for his personal visit, took international roaming package from the Opposite Party for his Mobile No.9814916061 by paying security amount of Rs.2,000/- on 03.06.2007 which was to be adjusted at the time of paying the bill. The roaming was to be activated on 08.06.2017, as per departure program. To the utter surprise of the Complainant, he received the bill showing Rs.8,823.64P as current charges. On being approached, Opposite Party admitted that their Office failed to intimate about the package to their counterpart in Idea Office in New Jersey (USA) and as such the package could not be implemented. When the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to correct the bill, he was told that the bill was as per usage and he could do whatever he liked. In order to avoid penalty, the Complainant paid the bill under protest. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party filed its reply pleading that the plan opted by the Complainant was duly activated on his mobile number and he was duly charged for the services used by him as per the features of the said plan. It has been admitted that the Complainant had paid the disputed bill and his security amount was adjusted therein. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party.
7.         Perusal of the documents on record makes it clear that the Complainant went to New Jersey (USA) for his personal visit and he took the Mobile No.9814916061 with him. It is not in dispute that the international roaming facility was activated on the aforesaid number upon the request of the Complainant. Roaming is the ability for a Customer of mobile communications to automatically make and receive telephone calls, send and receive data, or access other services while travelling outside the geographical coverage area of the home network, by means of using a network of another operator. In other words, international roaming is used when mobile subscribers travel abroad and make use of the network of an operator in the foreign country.
8.         Admittedly, the Complainant used his number in international roaming (USA) in June-July 2017 and got activated the International Roaming Pack “R1499_Intl Roaming Pack”. Details of the said pack, which accounts for Annexure OP-5 (Pg. 59 of the paper book) makes it quite clear that under the roaming pack of Rs.1499 as is in the present case, the Complainant could make calls in 42 countries for 30 days with offer of free incoming call for 30 minutes, local outgoing call @ Rs.15/- per minute, International call @ Rs.30/- per minute, incoming call @ Rs.30/- per minute and outgoing SMS @ Rs.15/- per SMS etc. To corroborate the same, the Opposite Party has annexed one previous bill of the Complainant as Annexure OP-4, which admittedly is of the Complainant when he visited Dubai in the month of May 2017. Through the present Complaint, the Complainant is alleging that normally his bill is ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs.800/- or at the maximum upto Rs.1000/- only. It is quite surprising that how the Complainant is comparing his normal bill with the international usage. We feel that the facility provided by the Opposite Party which the Complainant used aboard, cannot be compared to the facility which he is availing living in India. It is not the case of the Complainant that he could not communicate to his relatives/friends after availing the services of the Opposite Party.  Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Party. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.   
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

		Sd/-	Sd/-
06/09/2018		[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
		Member	President
“Dutt”