Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/218/2015

M/s.Subham Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Bharthi Airtel Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Fanny Rajan

07 Nov 2022

ORDER

                                   Date of Complaint Filed : 07.05.2015

                                   Date of Reservation      : 12.10.2022

                                   Date of Order               : 07.11.2022

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. 218/2015

MONDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

Mr.Subham Kumar,

S/o. Jay Gope Nayker,

No. 3/142, Flat A1, Eswari Enclave,

Sathya Nagar Main Road,

Ramapuram, Chennai - 600 089.                                                                                                …  Complainant

 

-Vs-

1. M/s BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,

Represented by its Authorised Signatory,

Bharti Cresent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road,

 Vasant Kunj, Phase-II,

 New Delhi - 110 070.

 

2. M/s BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,

Represented by its Manager,

Billing Department,

No.101, Bharathi Towers,

Santhome High Road,

Santhome, Chennai - 600 004.                                                                                                  ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant             : M/s. Fanny Rajan

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

 

        On perusal of records and having heard the oral arguments of the Complainant, we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by 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 Parties to refund a sum of INR 29,505/- made by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties towards wrongfully charged internet usge along with interest @18% p.a from 04.04.2015 till the date of realisation and to pay a sum of INR 1,00,000/- towards loss monetary loss, hardship, mental agony, trauma, stress, physical strain pain, pressure caused to the Complainant along with cost.

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

The 2^nd Opposite Party is the branch of the 1^stOpposite Party. He is a Qualified Chartered Accountant and a Financial Consultant and has earned good reputation among his clients. In January 2011, the Opposite Parties representative had approached his office and offered to provide CUG plan to the employees of Price Waterhouse Coopers and the salient features of the plan was i)Rental at a rate of INR.99 per month ii) Rental at the rate of INR.98 per month for 2 GB GPRS iii) free @ 10p/10kb (2G network) iv) Free incoming Iv) Zero Charges towards local CUG outgoing calls. The Opposite Parties representatives had approached and canvassed amongst him and his colleagues to get themselves enrolled in the said CUG plan with a promise that it would be beneficial to them both personally and professionally. Further the Opposite Parties representative also acclaimed that the Opposite Parties company provided the best and efficient services in India compared to any other network. He had decided to avail the CUG 99 plan offered by the Opposite Parties. As he wanted to retain his earlier number which was vital point of contact with his clients, he had requested if the same number can be transferred under the newly launched Mobile Number Portability plan and the Opposite Parties representatives had promised that the change in number is trivial issue and can be handled by them. Accordingly, he had filled in the subscriber application form along with the request for Mobile Number portability plan. In the month of January, 2011, after due migration as per the Mobile Portability Plan, he was allotted the Opposite Parties postpaid sim card bearing mobile number 9543096520 under the CUG 99 plan. His mobile number had been activated on January 2011 and since then he has been using the said number. He has been prompt and regular in payment of his bills and there has been no default on his part till date. In the past 4 years, his monthly bills for the said postpaid number have always ranged between INR 300/- and INR 600/-. As per the CUG plan, he had activated only 2G internet services with a credit limit INR.5,600/-. On 11.03.2015, he had travelled to Bangalore for a client meeting and was held up in the meeting between 10.30 AM to 07.30 PM. Around 05.22 PM he had received a message from the Opposite Parties that he had used 2132 MB out of the 2048 MB built in mobile internet data and post the 2048 MB, he would be charged as per the bill plan. In fact, he was surprised to receive the message, as he had not used the mobile internet data service since arriving at the client's office and when he had crossed checked his mobile, he noticed that the Mobile Data was switched off. As he was held up in the client meeting he had decided to sought out the issue later. Around 08.00 PM he had switched on the mobile data but he noticed that his mobile internet data service was not working. The said mobile number was mainly used for the communication with his clients and therefore, in the past 4 years of usage, the internet data has never exceeded the given free 2GB data as per the CUG 99 plan and he has never been charged excess for the data usage. On 12.03.2015 around 7.50 AM, he had received another message from the Opposite Parties that his Mobile Internet service had been discontinued due to high usage. Whileso, around 10.49 AM he had received an e-mail from the Opposite Parties that he had used the internet of about 4615 MB. His mobile internet data had been switched off on 11.03.2015 until 08.00 PM and thereafter, he was unable to use the same. Under such circumstance, he does not understand how the usage could have soared to 4615MB. After conversing with several of the Opposite Parties' personnel, he came to understand that the Opposite Parties have allegedly charged him for the Internet usage under 3G data category on 11.03.2015. It is also necessary to note that he was only activated for 2G network and it is fairly impossible to access so much internet data within such a short period. When he had not used the alleged internet data, he cannot be expected to pay for the erroneous usage charges. When the issue was addressed to the Opposite Parties' personnel, they had callously stated that his bill would be generated only on 20.03.2015 and only thereafter, they would be able to look into the issue. Despite no fault on his part, he was unable to access his internet data due to the arbitrary and unilateral decision of the Opposite Parties to block of internet data usage. He was not getting any proper response from the Opposite Parties' personnel, he had sent an email dated 16.03.2015 to them detailing his grievances and requested them to sought out the issue before generating the bill on 20.03.2015. To his dismay, he received an email from the Opposite Parties' personnel alleging that there is a 2G data usage of 4615MB and the issue and his queries could only be clarified only post generation of the bill. The Opposite Parties' personnel had deliberately avoided in addressing the issue with regard to the disconnected internet data usage. On receipt of the said vague email, he had sent another email seeking to clarify how there could be 2GB data usage within 14 hours in a 2G activated mobile. He was further shocked at the reply received from the Opposite Parties' personnel merely reiterating that the details of usage and final charges can be accessed only after the bill is generated and he can only view the unbilled amount. The Opposite Parties' personnel had deliberately ignored his concern about the blocked internet usage and subjected him to unnecessary mental agony and Inconvenience. The period from 20.02.2015 to 19.03.2015, the Opposite Parties had generated the Bill dated 21.03.2015 bearing No. 773246685 for a sum of INR.30,003.61. He was completely surprised in the manner in which the Opposite Parties had chosen to generate a bill without even taking into consideration the grievances raised by the Complainant. The said bill was received by him on 23.03.2015 via email. He had lodged a Complaint vide No. 60928694 dated 23.03.2015 through phone to Customer Care executive but however, he had received a SMS on 23.03.2015 that the complaint had been resolved. Whileso, on 23.03.2015 around 08.01 PM, the Complainant had received a SMS from the Opposite Parties stating that his usage until 22.03.2015 was INR 30,004/- and as his credit limit was only INR.5,600, and as such he had to pay the said sum within 24 hours for continued service. On perusal of the itemized bill, he noticed that within a period of 6 hours, the Opposite Parties have charged him for 39,68,438 KB of 3G mobile data. When only 2G data usage was activated, does not know how the 3G could have been accessed in the said post paid number. Further when his credit limit is INR.5,600/-, he does not understand how there could have been a usage of about INR.30,004/- in the said number. As per the Bill dated 21.03.2015, he had to legitimately pay a sum of INR.458.77 only and as such, on 24.03.2015 he had paid a sum of INR.500/-, being the undisputed amount vide transaction Receipt No.385447. In the meantime, he had spoken to the Opposite Parties' personnel over the phone and was shocked that their personnel callously replied that he was simply telling stories that he was in a client meeting and refused to provide any proper reply regarding his concern of alleged 3G usage. He had also sent an email dated 24.03.2015 to the Opposite Parties detailing all his concerns about the excessive billing, the improbability to use 4GB data within 6 hours especially when in a client meeting, lack of proper redressal for the wrong billing and the arbitrary blockage of internet usage since 12.03.2015 and the threat to block outgoing services in case of non-payment within 24 hours. The due date of payment as per the bill is 08.04.2015 only, when the Opposite Parties have not opted to restrict the usage when the credit limit was reached, it is completely arbitrary on the part of the Opposite Parties to block outgoing services immediately ongeneration of the bill. Despite payment of the undisputed amount, the services were not restored and all his attempts, the Opposite Parties' personnel have failed to reverse the wrong billing. As this Postpaid number is his important point of contact to all his clients, it became a necessity for him to get the service restored. Having no other option, he had decided to pay the balance disputed amount of INR.29,505/- to the Opposite Parties under protest and seek for immediately restoring the outgoing services facility. Accordingly, on 02.04.2015, he had visited the 2^ndOpposite Party for payment of the disputed amount under protest. However, when he had produced the letter under protest seeking for an acknowledgement, the Opposite Parties' personnel had blatantly refused to accept the payment and provide an acknowledgement. After much discussion, the Opposite Parties' personnel had requested him to wait until 04.04.2014, as the Opposite Parties personnel had to discuss with his superiors before providing an acknowledgement. Even though he had offered to pay under protest, the Opposite Parties have chosen to refuse the same and as such he was deprived of the services for another 2 days, though there was no fault on his part. The Opposite Parties' personnel were well informed and thoroughly aware of the fact that he had availed the mobile portability service, as the said mobile number is vital communication means with his clients and the hindrance in service to the number would cause severe monetary loss and loss of reputation/good will to our client and affecting the only source of his livelihood. However, on 02.04.2015 when he had offered to pay under protest, the Opposite Parties' personnel had merely evaded receiving the payment and providing an acknowledgement for the letter dated 02.04.2015 for the reasons best known to them. When he had visited the 2^ndOpposite Party's office on 04.04.2015, their personnel had initially refused to accept the payment and acknowledge his protest letter. He was made to wait for nearly an hour, before the Opposite Parties' personnel, Mr. T.Balapragadeedh (Team Leader), had accepted the Protest Letter dated 02.04.2015 alongwith Cheque No."000004" dated 02.04.2015 drawn on HDFC Bank, Nungambakkam branch for a sum of INR.29,505/- and issued an endorsement. The Complainant states that though the cheque was received on 04.04.2015 his outgoing service along with 2G internet was not restored immediately. The Opposite Parties had made him wait for one more day to get the services restored and only on 05.04.2015, they had restored all the services. The act of restoring the services only after receipt of the entire payment though it is under dispute and also without any proper explanation or justification for the wrong charges purely amounts to unfair trade practice and deficient service. Both Opposite Party are jointly and severally liable to refund the disputed sum of INR.29,505/- immediately, as the charges have been levied wrongly and unreasonably for a service not availed by him. Even after he had paid the disputed amount under protest, the Opposite Parties' personnel had continuously harassed him several times demanding payment of INR.29,505/-. Thus it would be evident that the Opposite Parties have no proper records. Further the fact that the Opposite Parties personnel had continued calling him for payment despite paying the disputed amount under protest and clarifying the position to their personnel, clearly shows the negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. These continuous calls only added fuel to his already existing grievance and subjected him to further mental agony, stress and waste of time. He was shocked to receive an email from the Opposite Parties on 20.04.2015 and also an SMS that his credit limit has been increased to INR.90,000/-, when he had never requested for enhancing the credit limit and he does not understand under what authority the Opposite Parties have chosen to enhance the credit limit. His billing has always ranged average between INR 300/- and INR 600/- in the past 4 years and the Complainant does not understand what was the alleged logic or reasoning for the Opposite Parties to increase the credit limit from INR.5,600/- to INR.90,000/- straightaway. The manner in which the Opposite Parties have chosen to arbitrarily increase the credit limit of the Complainant to INR.90,000/- without even consulting him or obtaining his consent, would clearly indicate the unfair trade practices adopted by the Opposite Parties and their intention to make unlawful gains at his cost. On perusal of the itemized billing would clearly indicate as if there is a fluctuation between 2G and 3G usages within a matter of few minutes and it is not known as to how such a scenario could happen. The fact that the SMS on 11.03.2015indicated that he had used 2132 MB and the SMS on 12.03.2015 Indicated that he has accessed 4615 MB: whereas there was no internet service availed after 07.00 PM on 11.03.2015, as evidenced from the itemized bill, would clearly indicate the negligent and deficient service of the Opposite Parties. Further, nearly 2483 MB could not have been used in a span of 11/2hours (1.e. between 05.22 PM and 06.56 PM), which again substantiates that the Opposite Parties' claim of 4615MB usage was wrongful.The Opposite Parties and its representatives have excessively charged him for data usage not used by him and arbitrarily restrained him from using their services. The Opposite Parties have deliberately blocked the outgoing services to his mobile even when he had paid the undisputed amount and further, coerced him to pay the disputed amount for resuming the services. The Opposite Parties' personnel have always given evasive and callous reply to him and in fact were even ready to place all blames on him and extract unlawful money from him. The attitude displayed by the Opposite Parties only proves that they all collide with each other and enroll people with their network, by making fallacious and malafide promises, knowing very well that none of these promises will be upheld. Only motive of the Opposite Parties is to earn unlawful and illegal profits at the cost of the customer. His outgoing service was blocked due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties and he was put in an embarrassing position as he was unable to revert the client calls and provide to timely response to his clients. The said act of the Opposite Parties has caused immense embarrassment and mental agony to the Complainant apart from resulting in loss of reputation and good will; directly affecting his livelihood. The Opposite Parties have failed to keep up most of its promises and assurances. It is thus evident that both the Opposite Parties are providing negligent and deficient services to their customers and exploiting their customers by wrongly charging them for unused facilities/services and as such engaged in unfair trade practices. He had issued a legal Notice dated 08.04.2015 upon the Opposite Parties elaborating the grievance and discomfort encountered by him due to the Opposite Party's negligence and deficient service and sought for the refund of the wrongly charged fees. However, till date there is no response from the Opposite Parties which blatantly the lethargic attitude. Hence the complaint.

3.   Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief are as follows:-

      The Complainant is a customer of the opposite parties and availing postpaid service connection under CUG 99 plan. The Complainant was availing 2G internet services and his Credit limit wasINR 5,600/-. The Complainant initially was availing 2G services and subsequently started to use 3G services from 2014. The complainant complained to the opposite parties alleging excessive bill. After verifying the complaints given by the Complainant, it has found that the bills were raised only for the internet usages and no other excessive bills or charges were raised as alleged by him. Theyhad resolved all the issues raised by the Complainant after taking due care. They have activated 3G services to the complainant during 16 July, 2013 and the same has been started using by him since from November 2014. The said fact was resembled in the bills for the period 20^thNovember 2014 to 19, February, 2015. The bills were filled along with this version, since the said bills are not filed by the complainant to suite his convenient. After availing the 3G services, since from November 2014, the complainant did not wanted to discard the 3G services instead started to use the 3G services. However, the complainant has suppressed those facts and alleging that the bill charged is excessive. Only when the charges for the month of March, 2015 was huge, the complainant started disputing the same. It is to be noted that, if the complainant is bonafide, he would have disputed the same since from November, 2014. However, the complainant opted to avail the 3G services. The Complainant's initial credit limit was Rs.5,600/- only but the credit limit would be increased as and when the data usage of the customer exceeds as against the agreed plan. Because of the excessive internet usage, the Credit limit was increased to Rs.90,000/-. It is their sole discretion for increasing the credit limit and the same will be discredited if the customer not willing to avail such facility. It is pertinent to mention that even after the credit limit was increased, there was no request from the complainant to discredit such a facility. The bills sent by themwere system generated based on the usages of customers. Hence the same can't be duplicated. They had never agreed for the reversal amount. In fact, the complainant has paid the amount as per the bill and in turn he has filed a present complaint against them with intent to harass the opposite parties. By mail dated 24.03.2015 sent by the oppositeparties to the complainant it was explained by them that the amount was charged as per the data usages. It is crystal clear from the documents filed by the complainant with respect to itemized statement for the period 20.02.2015 to 19.03.2015, wherein it can be seen that on 11.03.2015, the complainant has used internet usages and made false statements that he had switched off his mobile/data. But from the itemized statement filed by the complainant for the period 20.02.2015 to 19.03.2015, it is very much evident that the complainant has used the internet and the charges were incurred for the usages only. Even after verifying the statement, the complainant disputed the usages and filed the present frivolous complaint. The monthly bills of complainant may vary for every month depends upon the usages. It is admitted by the complainant himself in his complaint that he had used 2132 MB and post 2048 MB, the complainant would be charged as per the agreed plan. It is admitted by the complainant himself that he had received a message from the opposite parties. It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite parties had not intimated about the data usages. They have properly intimated about the internet usages since it was going to exceed the agreed plan. They had sent a bill for a sum of Rs.30,003.61/- for the period 20.02.2015 to 19.03.2015 for the usages incurred by the complainant and the said amount is legitimate due. The Complainant's initial credit limit was Rs.5,600/- only but the credit limit would be increased as and when the data usage of the customer exceeds as against the agreed plan. Because of the excessive internet usage, the Credit limit was increased to Rs.90,000/-. Even after the credit limit was increased, there was no request from the complainant to discredit such a facility. The complainant being a qualified Chartered Accountant & Financial Consultant is very well aware of the fact that he has started to use 3G Services from the period of November, 2014 itself but failed to request the deactivation of 3G services. When the bill amount was huge for the period March, 2015, the Complainant started to dispute the bills. Infact, the charges were incurred only for the usages. The bills are electronically generated. The complainant suppressed all those facts and alleged that the excessive charges were made. It is denied that the opposite parties person callously replied to the complainant. They have answered all the queries raised by the complainant as and when required. It is denied that the outgoing services would be blocked in case of non-payment as alleged by the complainant. As already stated the credit limit would be increased as and when the data usage of the customer exceeds as against the agreed plan. Their Nodal officer had sent a mail dated 24.03.2015 stating that the charges are valid and made with respect to the usages and clearly expressed that there was no feasibility to adjust the amount towards the bill. It is the best known reasons for the complainant, regarding the payment made during the month of March, 2015 when he is disputing the same as excessive bills and the complaint is silent about the payment made. The complainant cannot be permitted to make vague allegations as against the opposite parties even after the amount was paid. Because of the excessive internet usage, the Credit limit was increased to Rs.90,000/- after due communication in this regard. It is their sole discretion of the opposite parties for increasing the credit limit and the same will be discredited if the customer approaches. It was not the case of the complainant that the opposite parties have failed to inform about the increased credit limit. Infact, the complainant himself admitted that he got an SMS and Mail regarding the intimation. It is denied that there is a fluctuation between the 2G and 3G services. It is respectfully submitted that there was no fluctuation between 2G and 3G services as alleged by the complainant. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-14  were marked. The Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties, document Ex.B-1 was marked.

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 CUG 99 Plan with 2G Internet Services of the Opposite Party retaining his earlier mobile number under Mobile Portability. It is also not in dispute that the Complainant’s Credit Limit was Rs.5,600/-.

The disputed facts of the Complainant are that he had received a SMS on 11.03.2015 wherein it was indicated that he had used 2132 MB and another SMS on 12.03.2015 which indicated that he has accessed 4615 MB, when he had not availed any internet service after 07.00 PM on 11.03.2015. As per the SMS, data of 2483 MB could not have been used in a span of 1 1/2 hours 1.e. between 05.22 PM and 06.56 PM, hence the claim of usage of 4615 MB was wrong. When the said issue was taken to the knowledge of the Opposite Parties personnel it was replied that only after generation of the Bill they could be able to look into the issue. Thereafter by mail dated 16.03.2015 he had sought to resolve the issue before generating the bill on 20.03.2015, the same was not resolved immediately by saying that the details of usage and final charges could be assessed only after generation of the bill only then they could able to resolve. To his shock and surprise he had received a bill dated 21.03.2015 for a sum of Rs.30,003.61p on 23.03.2015 to be paid on 08.04.2015. Since he had dispute with regard to the usage of internet data, he had paid the undisputed amount of Rs.498/- and had raised a complaint on 16.03.2015 regarding the wrongful charge made on internet data usage. When he was using only 2G Network with 2GB free internet data, the usage of 4615 MB was highly improper and further when his credit limit was only Rs.5,600/-, the charges made in the said bill was wrongful and unlawful. The Opposite Parties in spite of resolving the same had compelled him to pay the dispute amount of 29,505/- by disconnecting his outgoing services, being an auditor he had suffered a lot to contact his clients in response to their calls. As no other go, when he had decided to pay the said disputed amount with protest letter, the same was not accepted by the representatives of the Opposite Parties who made him to wait for 4 hours and even thereafter when he approached the 2^nd Opposite Party’s personnel he was made to wait for an hour and thereafter the disputed amount paid through cheque was received. In spite of the payment made his outgoing service was not restored immediately, only a day after his outgoing service was restored, and in spite of entire payment made under protest he was called and threatened to pay the outstanding amount without looking into the records, which caused serious mental agony, embarrassment, severe monetary loss. Further, no response was made by the Opposite Parties to the Legal Notice dated 08.04.2015.

The Contentions of the Opposite Party are that the Complainant had started using 3G Services from the period of November, 2014 itself but failed to request the deactivation of 3G services. When the bill amount was huge for the period March, 2015, the Complainant started to dispute the bills. From the itemized bill for the period 19.02.2015 to 19.03.2015 the charges were incurred only for the usages. The bills are electronically generated and cannot be duplicated. The complainant suppressed all those facts and alleged that the excessive charges were made. They had never callously replied to the complainant. They have answered all the queries raised by the complainant as and when required. The outgoing services would be blocked in case of non-payment. The credit limit would be increased as and when the data usage of the customer exceeds as against the agreed plan. Their Nodal officer had sent a mail dated 24.03.2015 stating that the charges are valid and made with respect to the usages and clearly expressed that there was no feasibility to adjust the amount towards the bill. It is the best known reasons for the complainant, regarding the payment made during the month of March, 2015 when he is disputing the same as excessive bills and the complaint is silent about the payment made. The complainant cannot be permitted to make vague allegations as against the opposite parties even after the amount was paid. Because of the excessive internet usage, the Credit limit was increased to Rs.90,000/- after due communication in this regard and it is their sole discretion to increase the credit limit and the same will be discredited if the customer approaches. It was not the case of the complainant that they have failed to inform about the increased credit limit. The complainant himself admitted that he got an SMS and Mail regarding the intimation. There was no fluctuation between 2G and 3G services as alleged by the complainant.

On discussions made above and on perusal of records, it is evident from Ex.A-1 the Bills for the period from 21.04.2014 to 21.02.2015, the usage of internet data under 2G services was well within free limit provided by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant and the Credit limit was Rs.5600/-. From Ex.A-2 the SMS dated 11.03.2015 at 5.24 pm, the Opposite Party intimated that the usage of internet exceeded the free limit and indicated charges would apply for the excess usage. As per Ex.A-3 the mail dated 16.03.2015 sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties, it is evident that the Complainant had received another SMS on 12.03.2015 at 10.49 am intimating that the internet usage of 4615 MB was made by the Complainant, which constrained him to send Ex.A-3 as he has been notified by the Opposite Parties on 12.03.2015 at 7.49 am that his internet connection was discontinued due to high usage and had questioned about the usage under 2G services provided to him as well as sought for clarification as he found to be system error on internet usage and had also informed that he would not pay any additional amount for the notified internet usage which was not used by him and had requested to look into the issue and to sort out the same before the billing date, ie., 20.03.2015. From Ex.A-4 the bill dated 21.03.2015 along with itemized statement, the Complainant was charged a sum of Rs.30003.61p, wherein the mobile internet usage was charged at Rs.47,371.20 and a discount of Rs.21,076.30 was given. From Ex.A-4 in page no.53 the Itemized statement on 11.03.2015 the internet usage at timing 11.11.26 was shown as 1429345, at timing 13.09.29 was shown as 1403038, whereas in Ex.A-2 the SMS sent by the Opposite party on 11.03.20215 at 13.42 hours to the Complainant it was mentioned that 2132 MB of 2048 MB was used. Further from Ex.A-1 in Page Nos.15, 17, 19 and 21, statements dated 21.11.2014, 21.12.2014, 21.01.2015, 21.02.2015, the internet usage of the Complainant found to be within the free limit provided by the Opposite party, though it was contended by the Opposite Party that the Complainant started using 3G services. Further from Ex.A-5 the SMS sent by the Opposite parties, in page no.57 it was intimated that “Usage on your airtel mobile till 22-Mar-2015 is Rs.30004/- which has exceeded the credit limit of Rs.5600/-. Please pay within 24 hours for continued services”. By another SMS in the same page, ie., Page No.57, it was intimated by the Opposite parties that “Outgoing services have been restricted on your airtel mobile. Please pay Rs.30004/- immediately”. From Ex.A-6 the receipt no.385447 dated 24.03.2015 issued by the Opposite Parties, it is found that the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.500/-. From Ex.A-7 the reply dated 24.03.2015 sent by the Nodal Officer of the Opposite Parties, it was found that the Complainant had raised a complaint regarding the wrongful charges made on the internet data usage and the same was replied by Opposite Parties Nodal Officer that from the records the charges made were on the usage and to resume the outgoing services to pay the outstanding amount. It is pertinent to note that the pay by date for the Bill dated 21.03.2015 was 08.04.2015 and before generating the said Bill, the Complainant on 16.03.2015 itself had sent Ex.A-3, a mail to the Opposite Parties to look into and to sort the issue of internet usage claimed to be used by the Complainant, which was made by the Complainant on receiving the SMS on 11.03.2015 at 13.42 hrs. It is also pertinent to note that when the Complainant was provided with a credit limit of Rs.5600/- the usage of internet should have been disconnected once it reaches the credit limit and intimate the same to the Complainant, instead having charged Rs.30004/- which is too far from the Credit limit provided to the Complainant and claiming that the Complainant had used the internet data above the free limit and had started using 3G services from Novemebr,2014 as per Ex.B-1, without producing any proof on the request made by the Complainant to upgrade his plan to 3G services, are not legally sustainable, as it is clearly evident from Ex.A-3, in the mail dated 12.03.2015 sent by the Opposite Parties intimating about internet usage of approximately 4615 MB of 2048 MB, the current internet usage as on 12.03.2015 was valued at Rs.262/- and further had notified to upgrade his plan for 3G by sending SMS 3G to 121, Plan for 4G by sending SMS 4G to 121, hence it is clear that the Complainant was using 2G services of the Opposite Parties and not 3G services alleged to have been used from November 2014 and as contended by the Opposite Parties. Further from Ex.A-3, it is clear that the charges on the internet usage of the Complainant, made in Ex.A-4 Bill dated 21.03.2015 is unlawful. Further from Ex.A-1 Bills for the period 21.04.2014 to 21.02.2015 as well as from Ex.A-14 Bill dated 21.04.2015 filed and marked to substantiate the mobile Internet usage of the Complainant would clearly prove that the Complainant had used the mobile internet within the free limit and within credit limit provided by the Opposite Parties. Having disconnected the outgoing services of the Complainant within the pay by date and having failed to restore the outgoing services immediately in spite of having received the outstanding payment from the Complainant on the wrongful charges of the Mobile Internet usage made and claimed by the Opposite Parties in Ex.A-4 and having failed to resolve the issue of the Complainant, it is clear that the Opposite Parties had acted lethargically and negligently which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the Part of the Opposite Parties. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service and had caused serious mental agony to the Complainant. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 &3:-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.29,505/- paid by the complainant to the Opposite Parties towards wrongfully charged internet usage in respect of mobile number 9543096520, and also liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency of Service, along with costs of Rs.3000/-, to the complainant. 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 Parties 1 and 2 are directed jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.29,505/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Five Only ) paid  by the complainant to the Opposite Parties towards wrongfully charged internet usage in respect of mobile number 9543096520, and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards mental agony and deficiency of Service, along with costs of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only), to the complainant within 8 weeks, from the date of receipt of this order, failing payment, the complainant is entitled for future interest @9% per annum on the refund amount of Rs.29,505/-(Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Five Only ) from the date of default till the date of realisation, together other amount mentioned above.

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 7^th of November 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

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

 

Ex.A1	21.04.2014 – 21.02.2015	Bills of the Complainant
Ex.A2	11.03.2015	Screenshot of SMS from Opposite Parties
Ex.A3	16.03.2015	Email communications between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties
Ex.A4	21.03.2015	Bill No.773246685 generated by the Opposite parties
Ex.A5	23.03.2015-24.03.2015	Screenshot of SMS from the Opposite Parties
Ex.A6	24.03.2015	Receipt No.385447
Ex.A7	24.03.2015	Email communications between the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A8	25.03.2015	Email communications between the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A9	02.04.2015	Letter of the Complainant along with cheque dated 02.04.2015
Ex.A10	-	Payment History
Ex.A11	08.04.2015	Legal Notice along with receipt and acknowledgement card
Ex.A12	20.04.2015	Email of the Opposite Parties
Ex.A13	20.04.2015	Screenshot of the SMS of the Opposite Parties
Ex.A14	21.04.2015	Bill No.811571475

 

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

 

Ex.B1

20.11.2014 – 19.02.2015

Bills sent by the Opposite Parties to Complainant for the month of November to February

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT