Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/215/2015

Rajiv Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Matrix Cellular - Opp.Party(s)

In person

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/215/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	07/04/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	07/10/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Rajiv Goel s/o Sh. D.P. Goel, resident of H. No. 326, Sector 6, Panchkula.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

M/s Matrix Cellular through its General Manager SCO 188-189, First Floor Sector-8C Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP	:	Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a matrix cellular international connection as he was traveling to Australia from 17^th Feb. to 24 Feb. 2015. It has been alleged that when the complainant reached Australia on 18th February, there was no internet connectivity on his connection. He immediately reported the problem vide email Annexure A-1 to the office of OP but no connectivity was made available. The complainant came to know from a local dealer in Australia that there is no internet facility available on the said sim card/connection as per the settings available in Australia. After returning to India when the complainant contacted one Mr. Varun Munjal from whom he took the connection and he assured him that the matter would be resolved at the earliest. It has further been stated that the said Varun Munjal sent the complainant an email on 03.03.2015 to Opposite Party in which it was mentioned as “please waive off the charges of Bolton for the following client as the data package did not work in Australia. It has been further submitted that OP sent a bill amounting to Rs.1519/- to the complainant.  It has further been stated that the calls which were made by the complainant were only because of the non-availability of the internet service. It has further been submitted that a legal notice Annexure C-6 was sent to the OP but to no effect. It has further been stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party, seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that as per the ledger account one bill was raised to complainant as per the usage and after perusal of the itemized bill dated 28.2.2015. It has been stated that the SIM card was used for international text, international voice & local voice. No internet data was used by the complainant.  It has further been stated that in fact the bill in question was raised only for international text, international voice & local voice. No bill was raised for data usage. It was further stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong.

 

4.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Party and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.

 

6.      The main grouse of the Complainant is that he availed the services of the Opposite Party for matrix cellular international connection, but he could not get the same after reaching Australia. The problem was intimated to the Opposite Party vide an e-mail (Annex. A-1) that no connectivity was available to him. Vide e-mail dated 3.3.2015 (Annex.C-4) one Varun Munjal of the OP-Company requested his team i.e. Opposite Party to waive off the charges of Bolton for the Complainant as the data package did not work in Australia. There is specific mention in this e-mail that the Complainant reported this issue to Data Entry as he was not aware where to report. Annexure C-5 is the bill for the period 18.12.2015 to 25.02.2015 to the tune of Rs.1519.06P which was deducted from the account of the Complainant by the OP-Company. Annexure C-6 is the legal notice by the Complainant to the Opposite Party with regard to his grievance.

 

7.      The stand taken by the Opposite Party is that the sim card was used for international text, international voice and local voice, therefore, the bill was generated. No internet and data was used by the Complainant, therefore, no bill was raised for the same. 

 

8.      Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case relating to telephone in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and Anr.-III 2009 (8) SCC 481.

 

9.      It is important to mention that the Govt. of India vide letter No.J 24/11/2014 CPU dated 21.8.2014 has sent a copy of letter No.2-17/2013-Policy-I dated 24.1.2014 to the Hon’ble National Commission as well as State Commissions of all State Governments and U.Ts.  Paras No.4 & 6 of the letter are reproduced as under:-

“4.  The matter has been examined in this Department. It is mentioned that the matter referred to in the Hon’ble Supreme Court (General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and Anr.) involved a dispute between Department of Telecommunications (DoT) as a service provider prior to the hiving off telecom services into a separate company namely Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).  Since DoT was also the telegraph authority, reference was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the provisions of Section 7B.  However, powers of the telegraph authority have neither been vested nor are available to private telecom service providers and BSNL. Therefore, recourse to section 7B in case of disputes between consumers and private service providers and BSNL would not be available. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment is sui generis in its application and has to be read with reference to the particular facts and circumstances of the case before it.

6.   In view of the above position, this Department is of the view that the request from Government of West Bengal proposing to consider preferring an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for making the position of law unambiguous in the context of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not required and the District Forums are competent to deal with the disputes between telecom consumers and telecom service providers.”

_­­­­

          The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in JK Mittal Vs. Union of India & Ors., WP (C) 8285/2010 decided on 6.2.2012 has considered the provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and held that the consumer claim is maintainable before the District Forum. So, we are not impressed with this contention that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the dispute involved between the parties. 

 

10.      Admittedly, the services were provided to the Complainant by the Opposite Party, but despite various efforts the OP-company could not resolve the technical problem in the connection at the service provider end in Australia. Therefore, the Complainant could not meet the purpose of having the aforesaid services from the Opposite Party. We feel no one can estimate the quantum of inconvenience caused to the Complainant due to the negligent act of the Opposite Party especially at the time when the Complainant was out of his country. 

 

11.      So far as the prayer of the Complainant with regard to refund of Rs.1519.06/- is concerned, it is evident from Annexure-B (at page no.12) that the same was charged for international text, international voice and local voice only. There is no mention of data usage in this bill. But, a perusal of the e-mail (Annex.A-4) and non-providing of the internet services as promised in Australia on the matrix cellular connection clearly reveals that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party for not providing the connection when the same was specially purchased to avail the internet facility. This act of Opposite Party has certainly caused immense physical and mental harassment to the Complainant.

 

12.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is, directed  to:-

[a]  To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

[b]  To make payment of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

13.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No.[a] above shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

14.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

07^th October, 2015                            

Sd/- 

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER