ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Parties (herein referred in short as O.Ps) alleging the deficiency in service  and refund one time charges of Rs.3,245/- plus applicable services tax of Rs.485.75/-, totally amounting to Rs.3,731.75 along with interest at 12% per annum and Rs.5,648/ and international roaming charges of Rs.1,213.94/- along with interest at 12% per annum and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and for such other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; the complainant is a postpaid customer of the OP mobile service company and had mobile No.9886355000. OP company offered roaming services  on one time charge to its customer whenever he goes out of India. Accordingly the complainant had activated the international roaming pack (discounted date + voice ir pack for UK) for a sum of Rs.2,999/- on service  request No.44157963 and same was valid for 10 days. Thereafter the complainant activated one more international roaming pack (discounted date + voice ir pack for UK) for a sum of Rs.4,999/- vide service request No.44516292 which was valid for 30 days. The complainant booked  only two service pack from 20.02.2017 to 25.02.2017.

3.     The complainant received the bill on 27.02.2017 in respect of the mobile number 888763172 for a billing period from 26.01.2017 to 25.02.2017and had found several discrepancies in the bill under one time charge with regard to the international roaming changes though he never activated. The discrepancies are:

4.     Complainant further submits that since the date of receipts of the bill dated 27.02.2017, he was in constant touch with the service team of OP and requested them to rectify the discrepancies foun in the above dated bills. Finally, OP has taken step to waive of Rs.3448.86/- with regard to the ir pack of Rs.2999/- dated 21.02.2017. But OP did not carry out the discrepancies regarding the above mentioned Sl.No.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 bills amounting to Rs.3,245/- plus services tax of Rs.486.75 in total which amounts to Rs.3,731/-, was not processed for waiving off, even though there is fault  on the side of OP, complainant paid the entire amount in respect of the bill dated 27.02.2017.

5.     Further, the complainant submits that on 27.03.2017 he had activated a pack for a sum of Rs.2,999/- for 10 days, and he received a bill on 27.04.2017 for the billing period from 26.03.2017 to 25.04.2017. In this bill also, many discrepancies were found with regard  to the onetime charges and international roaming charge which he never activated. The details of discrepancies regarding One Time charges and International Roaming charges are :

6.     The receipt of the bill, complainant contacted the service team requesting them to rectify the above mentioned discrepancies in the said bill. However there was no response form the opposite end. Further complainant submits that in the bill No.252600081, dated 27.04.2017, OP has charged him a sum of Rs.2,604.55/- for international roaming, interest etc., which he had already paid in the previous month’s bill.  Further, complainant submits that he had opted for a daily pack international roaming 2649 – 1 day pack nrc” on 15.04.2017, 16.04.2017 and 17.04.2017, which included free incoming internet etc. However, OP has charged him again for the internet  usage on 15.04.2017 which was already covered under the above mentioned daily pack. The complainant had, on several occasions, contacted OP’s service tam to understand the levy of such charges. However, there is no valid reason provided by them of levying of such charges and they are not cooperative towards him in addressing the grievances.

7.     Complainant further submits that without availing the service and without any service reference number, OP cannot levy bogus charges and such an act amounts to fraud, cheating and are against the principles of fair trade practices and also such act amounts to deficiency of service.

8.     Complainant submits that he got issued a legal notice calling upon the OP to rectify discrepancies and the refund the amount. Despite receiving the legal notice, OP neither replied nor rectified the discrepancies. Hence this complaint.

9.     Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the Commission  and filed his version contending that the remedy  available for the complainant is under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides for adjudication of dispute under the provisions of Arbitration Act. On this count itself, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10.   In response to the complainant’s contention with regard to the bills dated 22.03.2017, 22.04.2017 and 22.05.2017, OP has given reply that there is no discrepancy in either of the bills. Only as a good will measure, Op has given a waiver of Rs.2,999/- on 02.03.2017 Rs.1,000/- twice on 01.04.2017 and Rs.699/- twice on 04.04.2017, thus totally a sum of Rs.6,397/- to the complainant. Further OP submits that remaining all the charges levied in the bills are correct.

11.   Further, OP has taken contention that the complainant is a subscriber of a parental mobile No. bearing 9886355000 and 2 add-on numbers viz 98853500063 and 9886080130. The complainant has sought for activation of several additional facilities on various dates. It is contended that as per the process multiple IR packs can be activated which run concurrently at the same time and a subscriber is liable to be charged for the same. In the instant case complainant’s Number was activated with the international roaming pack Rs.2,999/- and also one day plan of Rs.649/-  5 times i.e., on 20.02.2017, 21.02.2017, 22.02.2017, 23.02.2017 and 24.02.2017 the said one day packs are activate at the end of the complainant only, as such, the same were included in the bill.

12.   Further OP contended that the complainant has activated international roaming packs. Apart from these facts, at the instance of the complainant the discounted data + voice IR  pack for UK at Rs.649/- for one day also activated on 5 times within the billing cycle i.e., 26.01.2017 to 25.02.2017 and bill dated 27.02.2017 is issued as per the usage and taking into account the discounts  required to be given. Hence there is no discrepancies in the bill dated 27.02.2017. Further dates of activation shown by the complainant as if the activation of Rs.649/- plan done on a single day  is not correct.

13.   In response to the complainant’s contention in para 7 with respect to the bill dated 22.02.2017, though there was no mistake or default on the part of OP, waiver of Rs.3,448.86 is given for the bill dated 27.02.2017 only as a goodwill measure and as per the business norms adopted by the Opposite party. Despite providing the waiver complainant insisted for waiver of further amount as such as Opposite party informed the complainant through its email dated 26.03.2017, whereby  the complainant required to pay the balance amount. It relevant to not that the total amount charged  for the bill dated 27.02.2017 was Rs.23,100/-

14.   Further OP has denied the submission made in para 8 of complaint as the complainant never protested while paying the bill and the OP has  urged the complainant to provide strict proof for his averments and also stated that there was no discrepancy in the bills. Apart from this, OP has considered the request of complainant regarding bill dated 27.04.2017 and informed about correctness of the said charges levied in the bill.

15.   Further, the averment regarding payment  of Rs.2,604/- dated 27.05.2017 for international roaming and interest etc., in previous month’s bill is not accepted by the OP and he submits that the complainant has not provided a valid reason to prove the same.

16.   Further  OP has submitted that only  as  a goodwill measure, it has given waiver of Rs.649/- X2+1298 and further imitated the waiver of Rs.649/- X 3 times = 1947. Further OP initiated the waiver of Rs.999/- on 04.04.2017, Rs.1,000/- twice on 01.04.2017 and Rs.2,999/- on 02.03.2017. The complainant should not assume that the OP has admitted the said waiver. Hence complaint do not hold any water and prayed that the complainant to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

17.   In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

18.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the Affirmative.

                                For the following:-

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

18.   On perusal of complaint, version, evidence and documents from the both sides, it is clear that the complainant is a subscriber of OP company’s mobile service for his mobile number 9886355000 and  also he had two other add on numbers.  The present complaint is filed for recovery of excessive charges levied by the OP. The complainant had activated the international roaming pack (discounted data + voice ir pack for UK) for a sum of Rs.2,999/- vide service request NO.44157963 and said pack is valid for 10 days and again he had activated one more international roaming pack for a sum of Rs.4,999/- vide service request NO.44516292 and valid for 30 days. Thus the complainant had booked only two international roaming packs during 20.02.2017 to 25.02.2017. But as could be seen from the billing dated 26.01.2017 to 25.02.2017, Op has charged 9 times on different dates which amounts Rs.22,363.00.  Further OP has taken contentions in the version that the complainant is a subscriber of 2 add-on numbers like 9886350063 and 9886080130 along with parental mobile No.9886355000 and also alleged that the complainant has sought for activation of several additional facilities on various dates. In order to appreciate above statements of both parties we have observed that the OP has explained in the version with regard to international roaming pack of Rs.2,999/- and 5 times charge for  one day plan of Rs.649/- on different dates.

19.   Unfortunately OP has not mentioned the service request  numbers which are made by the complainant for the above services. Generally the mobile service companies issue a service request number to its customer on receiving order from its customer before activating the each service. But in the present case, we can not find such process. Thus, it creates suspicion over the objections taken by the OP. Further same kind of issues have been raised by the complainant  in respect of billing dated 26.03.2017 to 25.04.2017. In this bill also, OP has charged hypothetically in respect of Discount data + voice ir pack  for UK @ 4999 for 30 days, international roaming daily limit pack benefit @ 649 with incoming nrc, outgoing calls SMS and mobile internet on different dates  which amounts Rs.6,861.40/-. In respect of the above allegations of the complainant, OP has failed to address specific response. On the contrary, it denies in the usual manner which do not make any effect on the case of complainant.

20.   Further, the complainant alleged that in the bill dated 27.05.2017, OP has charged him a sum of Rs.2,604.55/- for international roaming, internet etc., which he had already paid in the previous month’s bill. Further the complainant submits that he had opted for a daily pack international roaming @ 649 -1 day pack nrc’ on 15.042017, 16.04.2017 and 17.04.2017 which includes free incoming, internet etc. However OP has charged him for internet usage on 15.04.2017 which is already covered under the above mentioned daily pack.

21.   OP has stated in the version that as a good will measure it has already given the waiver on different dates. When this is taken into consideration if at all there was no deficiency in service on its part why it waived the amount which is due to it. This itself shows that OP has inflated the billing and added the amount which the complainant had already paid and hence to avoid further complication it was waived the said amount. Further it can be considered as an unauthorized charge levied on the complainant and when the complainant protested by not paying the same and raised the issue after realizing its mistake and in order to please the complainant probably as waived some portion for which complainant was not satisfied and preferred this complaint. In view of this we are on the opi9nion there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in sending the bill for higher amount even though the said amount was already paid and further unfair trade practice in view of not refunding the amount claimed in access. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT NO.2:

22.   In the result complainant is entitle for refund of Rs.3,731.75 and Rs.9,466.49 = i.e. Rs.13,198.24 along with interest at 12% per annum from 27.02.2017 and 27.05.2017 respectively and damages of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses as OP made the complainant to suffer mentally, physically and financially and, further made to file this complaint before this Commission. Hence we answer POINT NO.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. OP-1 and 2 are jointly and severally hereby directed to Rs.3,731.75 and Rs.9,466.49 to the complainant along with interest at 12% per annum from 27.02.2017 and 27.05.2017 respectively till payment of the entire amount.
3. OP-1 and 2 further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and physical hardship and further Rs.5,000/- litigation expenses.
4. OPs are directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be weeded out/destroyed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this 30^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Doc.No.1: Copy of the bill dt:27.02.2017

Doc.No.2: Copy of the email dt: 26.03.2017.

Doc.No.3: Copy of the legal notice dt:22.04.2017.

Doc.No.4: Copy of the corrigendum dated 04.05.2017.

Doc.No.5: Copy of RPAD receipts

Doc.No.6: Postal acknowledgement.

Doc.No.7: Copy of the bill dt:27.04.2017.

Doc.No.8: Copy of the Bill 27.05.2017.

Doc.No.9: Copy of the legal notice dt: 15.06.2017.

Doc.No.10: RPAD receipt

Doc.No.11: Postal acknowledgment.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri.Siddaveer Chakki Authorized Signatory of OPs

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

- Nil -

MEMBER                 MEMBER               PRESIDENT

RAK*