Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/617/2015

Yashvir Mahajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Matrix Cellular (International Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

H.S. Parwana

28 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/617/2015
Date of Institution	:	14/09/2015
Date of Decision	:	28/03/2016

 

Yashvir Mahajan, IAS (Retd.), House No.1121, Sector 2, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s Matrix Cellular (International) Services Ltd., City Emporium, Business Suit No.2 and 3, 2^nd Floor, Phase I, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager, Sh. Puneet Kapoor.

……Opposite Party

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                                                       

For complainant	:	Sh. H.S. Parwana, Advocate
For OP	:	Sh. Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate.

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Sh. Yashvir Mahajan, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Matrix Cellular (International) Services Ltd., Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that he visited Singapore for a pleasure trip with his family from 24.1.2015 to 31.1.2015.  To remain in touch with his near and dear while travelling abroad, the complainant took international mobile connection package on his mobile from the OP and paid Rs.3,500/- + Rs.1,500/- as additional security for the package. Under the package, the OP agreed for providing facility of making free 1000 minutes local calling in Singapore, 1000 minutes calling in India and 500 MB free data during the course of the trip.  However, the facility of international calling was abruptly cut off even before the expiry of the package period without any information, due to which the complainant could not intimate his return programme to his other family members.  Resultantly they could not reach airport to pick the complainant and he had to incur extra expense in hiring a taxi. Not only this, the OP slapped additional bill dated 30.1.2015 for Rs.24,902.44 upon the complainant, which was to be cleared by 26.2.2015, and the same was subsequently enhanced to Rs.25,402/-. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written reply, the OP has admitted that the complainant had paid security amount of Rs.3,500/-.  However, the receipt of Rs.1,500/- as additional security from the complainant has been denied. It has been contended that the services to the complainant were never stopped and as per the itemized bills, he used the services of the OP till 28.1.2015.  It has been stated that the bills raised by the OP were as per usage of the complainant and calculated as per the tariff plan taken by him.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         In his replication, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OP and has reiterated his own.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant.
6.         The case of the complainant is that he deposited Rs.3,500/- and another Rs.1,500/- as security with the OP for availing its international cellular services for his international tour which was planned from 24.1.2015 to 31.1.2015. The allegation of the complainant is that the OP did not provide the facility/service as per the tariff plan which was agreed upon. Even the facility of international calling was abruptly cut off before the expiry of the package period without any information.
7.         The stand taken by the OP is that as per the itemized bills, the complainant used the services till 28.1.2015 and the bills raised by it are as per the usage of the complainant only as the calculations have been done as per the tariff plan taken by him. 
8.         After going through the file, it is evident from Annexure C-1 that the bill period is from 30.12.2014 to 29.1.2015. As per page 8 of the paper book, there is detailed mention of the usage of the mobile connection specifically described as international calls.  Most of these calls are of long duration and coming under the category of long distance charge.  It is apparent from the bill (Annexure C-1) itself that the complainant has used the facility provided by the OP and so the bill has been raised.  Admittedly, the complainant has paid only Rs.3,500/- as security amount which already has been adjusted.  So far as the question of paying Rs.1,500/- as additional security is concerned, the complainant has failed to adduce any receipt or document as per which he paid the said amount. The complainant was provided this international sim card to be used in Singapore and not in India. It is clear from the itemized bills that the complainant has used the services during his trip.  Moreover as per Annexure B, the complainant has agreed on the tariff plan which was to be used in Singapore only. Hence, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case as there is no sufficient evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. 
9.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint 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/-
28/03/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member