Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/364/2015

M/s.Gowri Ravi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Bharathi Airted Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Surendar, Chenthoori Pugazhendhi

11 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 07.09.2015

Date of Reservation      : 12.07.2022

Date of Order               : 11.08.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.364/2015

THURSDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Mrs. Gowri Ravi, aged 47 years,

W/o. Mr. M.Ravi,

New No.24, Old No. 17,

Chari Street, T Nagar,

Chennai - 600 017.                                                                                                                                                   ... Complainant                 

..Vs..

M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Oceanic Towers,

No. 101, Santhome High Road,

Santhome,

Chennai-600 028.                                                                                                                                                   ... Opposite Party

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. K.Surendar

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : M/s. Iyer & Thomas

        On perusal of records and after having having heard the oral arguments of the Complainants and treating the written arguments as oral arguments of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronouned by the Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.   The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to restore her mobile Phone connection bearing number 9566001525 and direct the Opposite Party to pay  sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation damages to the Complainant along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Opposite Party is a telecommunication service provider and that the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Party having availed a mobile phone connection from it vide phone number 9566001525 and customer relationship number 1019825801. The Complainant has been using the said mobile number for more than 5 years as a genuine customer by regularly paying the amount specified in the monthly bills raised by the Opposite Party. she had planned a family trip to Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia from 29th June, 2015 to 12th July, 2015. As the international roaming charges are expensive, the Complainant, through her husband, Mr. Ravi, had sought the advice of the Opposite Party for economic usage of the phone connection during international roaming. Accordingly, as per the advice of the Opposite Party, the Complainant had duly activated two top-up packages for international roaming as follows: (i) 30 MB net access at Rs.999/- for 30 days (ii) 30 minutes of free incoming calls and outgoing calls at the rate of Rs. 19/- per minute at Rs.999/- for 30 days. on 30th June, 2015, when she was at Singapore, she had received an SMS from the Opposite Party stating that an amount of Rs.6844/- was due and payable by her. Again on the very next day, ie, on 1^st July, 2015, the Complainant had received a similar SMS from the Opposite Party claiming that she had to pay an amount of Rs.8924/- to the Opposite Party and thereafter another similar SMS for a sum of Rs.23,828/-. The Complainant was shocked on seeing the sent by the Opposite Party and immediately removed the SIM card from her phone in order to avoid any further trouble. The Complainant, through her husband had sent an e-mail to the Opposite Party, lodging a complaint about the same and asked the Opposite Party to disable data roaming, for which the Opposite Party has responded through e-mail. Thereafter, the Complainant had not used the said mobile phone until returning to Chennai. Upon arriving at Chennai on 13^th July, 2015, the Complainant, through her husband had lodged a complaint with the customer care of the Opposite Party regarding the above issue and the Complainant was told that a senior executive would respond to the grievance. Subsequently, on 14^th July, 2015, one, Mr. Sathish had called the Complainant, introducing himself as a representative of the Opposite Party and assured to look into the issue and revert within 48 hours. However, the said Mr. Sathish had never responded and evaded to resolve the genuine grievance of the Complainant. The Complainant, through her husband had therefore on 20^th July, 2015, contacted the customer care of the Opposite Party and spoke to an executive of the Opposite Party namely, Ms. Suma and lodged a complaint, which also fell in deaf ears. Meanwhile, the Complainant was put to grave shock, when she received the bill dated 7^th July, 2015 raised by the Opposite Party in bill number 900418919, wherein the Opposite Party has claimed an exorbitant amount of Rs.31,682.59/- as outstanding payable by the Complainant towards usage of the above said mobile number. While the fact remains that the Complainant had removed the SIM card of the Opposite Party from her phone on receiving the aforesaid messages and the connection was active only for a period of two days viz. 29^th and 30^th June, 2015 during international roaming, the Opposite Party has raised a bill for such a huge amount only with a view extort money from the Complainant. The aforesaid bill provided by the Opposite Party reflects that internet usage during international roaming has been consumed for Rs. 39,728.00/-, for just 2 days, viz. 29^th and 30th June, 2015. Charging such huge amount on one hand, the Opposite Party have deducted a sum of Rs.19,974.50/-, owing to the top-up plan subscribed by the Complainant for using 30 MB during international roaming at Rs.999/-. Even as per the aforesaid bill raised by the Opposite Party, the Complainant had consumed only 15.019 MB during international roaming and as such she is not liable to pay any further amount towards internet usage. Knowing fully well about the top-up plan subscribed by the Complainant, which is also reflected in the aforesaid bill, the Opposite Party has in a malafide manner deducted only a sum Rs.19.974.50/- instead of Rs.39,728.00/ as per the top-up plan. Further, activation of the top-up package for using 30 minutes free incoming calls and outgoing calls at Rs. 19/- per minute during international roaming for 30 days by duly paying a sum of Rs.999/-. the Opposite Party has malafidely charged exorbitant amounts in violation of the aforesaid top-up package. In particular, the bill reflects that the Complainant had used just 11 minutes of incoming calls and no charge could be levied for the same as per the top-up package. However, the Opposite Party has unlawfully charged Rs.1,800/- for the same. Similarly, the bill reflects that the Complainant had used just 28 minutes of outgoing calls and only an amount of Rs.532/- should have been charged as per the top-up package (28 minutes @ Rs.19/- per minute). However, the Opposite Party has unlawfully charged Rs.5,400/- for the same. As such the aforesaid bill raised by the Opposite Party are filled with inconsistencies and is apparently nothing but an attempt on the part of the Opposite Party to defraud the Complainant and thereby attain unlawful enrichment. The Complainant had lodged a complaint before the Opposite Party about the huge inconsistencies in the bill, the Opposite Party has failed to respond to the Complainant's genuine grievance. On the other hand, on 27^th July, 2015 the Opposite Party has abruptly disconnected the outgoing facilities in the phone connection of the Complainant, due to which she has been subjected to enormous hardship friends, colleagues and relatives. Immediately thereafter, the Complainant had sent an e-mail dated 28th July, 2015, to the and embarrassment amongst her Opposite Party pointing out the discrepanices in the bill. However, the Opposite Party had sent Complainant had used 59.357 MB of internet access during a International Roaming, which is contrary to the bill raised by the shocking reply stating that the Opposite Party that reflects usage of 15.019 MB. The Opposite Party has further claimed that the bill has been raised by automated billing system without any manual intervention. If that is true, it is highly uncomprehensible as to how the Opposite Party has responded in utter contravention to its own bill. The Opposite Party has been demanding payment of the alleged bill through phone, SMS, emails and also by sending recovery agents to residence demanding payment of the exorbitant bill amount. Due to the continuous harassment, the Complainant has been put to indescribable mental pain, agony and loss of reputation. The Opposite Party is therefore liable under law to duly compensate her for the indescribable mental torture, financial loss damage to reputation and pain undergone by her due to the untoward acts of the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant's connection was deactivated during the year 2015 for the non payment of legitimate pending dues. The Complainant has requested the Opposite Party for the activation of two packs namely, i) IR Topup with 30MB at Rs.999 for 30 days, ii) IR Topup with 30 minutes incoming free at Rs.999 for 30 days. The said two packs have been activated on 24.06.2015 at the instance of Complainant. The second topup IR pack has been activated only for 30 minutes incoming calls and not for International Roaming outgoing calls as alleged by the Complainant. They sent SMS to the Complainant about the payments for usages, when the Complainant was in international roaming. Those pending dues have been informed to her periodically through SMS and the same has been admitted by her in the  complaint itself. The SMS were sent only for the usages incurred by her Complainant. The bills are automatically generated without any manual intervention, she had lodged a complaint with the Opposite Party regarding the alleged excessive bill. However, the customer care executives of Opposite Party have clearly explained that the charges were levied only for the services utilized as per the packs activated. They had sent a bill dated 07.07.2015 for her mobile number for the month of 5^th June, 2015 to 4^th July, 2015 and the outstanding amount payable by the Complainant for the said period is Rs.31,682.59/-. It is admitted that that charges were made only for 2 days, i.e.29^th & 30^th June, 2015. The bill raised by the Opposite Party during international roaming by the Complainant is legitimate bill and binding on the Complainant. The Complainant cannot escape from her liability since the bill has been sent for legitimate claim of the Opposite Party. The mobile internet usages during international roaming which comes around Rs.39,728/- for the usages incurred by the Complainant. Infact, the Opposite Party on good will has given discounts to the tune of Rs.19,974.50/- out of Rs.39,728/- for the international mobile internet usages. The said discount offered by the Opposite Party is reflected in the bill itself. The Complainant has used approximately 59.357MB during international roaming on 29^th & 30^th June, 2015 as against the agreed plan and had used additional 29.357 MB. The said charges were made for consuming the additional international roaming mobile internet usages. The said international roaming, mobile internet usages have been reflected in the bill. The Complainant did not consume only 15.019 MB as alleged in the complaint. It is necessary for the Opposite Party to charge excessive amounts and moreover the bill has been automatically generated. The Complainant has not opted to subscribe for activation of IR outgoing calls. In fact, the Complainant subscribed only for IR Topup with 30 mins incoming calls free Rs.999 for 30 days and the same has been reflected in the bill period 5^th June, 2015 to 4^th July, 2015. It is admitted that the Complainant had used only 11 minutes of incoming calls as falls within the subscribed pack. Though the Opposite Party has charged Rs.1800/- for international roaming, incoming calls. However, the Opposite Party has deducted the said Rs.1800/- on two dates. The deduction of Rs.600/- was made in the billing period 05.06.2015 to 04.07.2015. The remaining deduction of Rs.1200/- was made in the bill period 05.07.2015 to 04.08.2015. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1800/- has not been charged as alleged by the Complainant and the same has been deducted as accordingly. Both the deductions were seen in the bill itself. It is further submitted that the charges has been made for international outgoing calls to the tune of Rs.5400/- is justifiable and binding on the Complainant. It is incorrect as stated by the Complainant that the Opposite Party should have been charged Rs.532/- for outgoing calls. It is not known how the Complainant has charged Rs.532/- since the Complainant did not subscribe for IR outgoing calls. It is clearly visible in the billing period from 5 June, 2015 to 4 July, 2015 that the amount of Rs.5400/- has been charged for the services utilized by the Complainant. The amount of Rs.5400/- has been charged as per the standard charges. The Complainant has made 14 international roaming calls with 36 amount of pulse. The rate of per pulse is Rs.150/-. Therefore the amount of Rs.5400/- has been calculated as (367150-5400). The same has been reflected in the billing period from 5 June, 2015 to 4" July, 2015 itself. The Complainant without noticing all these issues and conveniently suppressed all the material facts with intent to avoid the legitimate pending dues of Opposite Party. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.     The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3  were marked.   

The Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-2  were marked. 

5.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

                It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had availed two top-up packages for international roaming from the Opposite Party, namely i) 30 MB net access at Rs.999/- for 30 days and ii) 30 minutes of free incoming calls and outgoing calls at the rate of Rs.19/- per minute at Rs.999/- for 30 days, for travel to Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia from 29^th June 2015 to 12^th July,2015. It is also not in dispute that the said plans has been activated on 24.06.2015.

        The dispute arose when the Complainant was at Singapore, she had received a SMS from the Opposite Party on 30.06.2015 for an amount of Rs.6844/- and on 01.07.2015 received another sms for Rs.8924/- and for Rs.23,828/-, on seeing the messages she was shocked and removed the SIM Card from her phone and asked the Opposite Party to disable data roaming. From the perusal of email dated 03.07.2015 sent to the Opposite Party as found in page No.2 of Ex.A-1 and by reply dated 03.07.2015 the Opposite Party had responded and only from 02.07.2015 they had barred International GPRS connection of the Complainant, which was also found in page No.2 of Ex.A-1. The bills raised on 07.07.2015 for the period 05.06.2016 to 04.07.2015 as found in Ex.A-2, & Ex.B-1 the plans of the Complainant reflected in page No.4 of Ex.A-2 of the Complainant reflected in page No.4 of Ex.A-2 and in page No.5 and 6 of Ex.A-2, the incoming calls-voice was charged at Rs.1,800/- as against incoming free and further had charged a sum of Rs.5400/- for 28.17 minutes as against Rs.532/- (28.17 minutes * Rs.19 minutes) and total usage of mobile internet was calculated to 702696 KB, whereas the international roaming to the Complainant’s mobile was activated only on 24.06.2015 for the travel period from 29.06.2015, the usage reflects 3212KB on 29.06.2015 and 11807KB on 30.06.2015, totalling to 15019KB equals to 15.019KB, even assuming the internet mobile data usage from the activation date, i.e., 24.06.2015, the calculation of internet usage comes to 30.936 MB and the Complainant is entitled for

Point No.2 and 3:-

        As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Party, the Complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Party and towards mental agony and for a sum of Rs.500/- towards costs. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-  (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards costs, within 8 weeks from the date of the order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of payment.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 11^th day of August 2022.  

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT