Complaint filed on: 26-02-2010<br /> Disposed on: 13-08-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.417/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 13th AUGUST 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> <br /> Vikas Kumar Sharma, <br /> Flat No.103, Classic comfort Apts,<br /> Bilekahalli Road, off Bannerghatta<br /> Road, Bangalore-76, Karnataka <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> Opposite parties: - <br /> <br /> 1. Reliance World, The Forum,<br /> Hosur Road, Adugodi, <br /> Bangalore -56<br /> 2. M/s. Reliance Communications <br /> Limited, H Block, 1st Floor, <br /> Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge city,<br /> Navi Mumbai-10, Maharastra. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Reliance Communications Limited (the OP) with the grievances that, he has availed post paid connections reliance phone under the plan card “My Mobile Unlimited 440” on 23-9-2008. Under the said plan the monthly charge of Rs.440/- excluding taxes was fixed with assurance under plan, local and national calls to any reliance phone was free of charge and further calls made to other service provider were chargeable. According to the plan, tariff was not subject to change and it was valid for life time. That he was using the service and paying the bills on time but controversy arose during August 2009 billing cycle to8-9-2009. OP without informing him has changed the plan and started charging for calls to reliance telecom GSM service of MP and Chhattisgarh with effect from 18-8-2009. Then he received communication from OP that his account exceeded the maximum credit limit available by account and his final bill came out to be Rs.1492.97 and that his bill never been so high and attributing deficiency to OP and unfair trade practice has prayed for excess bill amount is to be deducted, charges incurred after de-activation of service is also to be deducted and to award compensation of Rs.2,000/- for excess billing and compensation towards other expenditure. <br /> <br /> 2. OP who has appeared through his advocate has filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Civil appeal No.7687/04 reported in 2009 AIR SCW page 5631. OP has admitted to had extended the telephone connection under My Mobile Unlimited 440 plan but denied that the plan was subject to change and stated as per agreed terms they can change the plan, as per demand in market, as per business needs. OP further contended that the scheme was changed subsequently under agreement with effect from 18-8-2009 and under RTL (Reliance Telecom limited) GSM numbers of MP, Chhattisgarh, Bihar and other states calls were made chargeable and therefore denied all the allegations of the complainant and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced copies of E-mail he had sent to OP and copies of bills sent by OP which contain excess bills, according to the complainant. OP has produced copies of tariff plan and copies of change of My Mobil Unlimited 440. We have heard the complainant who is in person and counsel for OP and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this forum?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> 1. Answer Point No.1: In the negative <br /> 2. Answer Point No.2: To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: Admittedly the complainant has questioned the correctness of charging of the plan by OP and charging him for calls had made to MP and Chhattisgarh. The complainant has not produced any documents to prove that the phone plan facility provided to him was unchangeable and the facility of free calls was extended to calls even to out side Karnataka for all time to come. The OP has produced a copy of note issued changing the plan facility extended to the complainant and others under the particular scheme. Under this with effect from 18-8-2009 the RTL GSM numbers calls made to MP, Chhattisgarh and other states are made chargeable as per offnet mobile tariff and it is further shown that My Mobile Unlimited 440 scheme was closed with effect from 2-10-2008.It is thereafter, it is found that the complainant is charged for his calls to Chhattisgarh. <br /> <br /> 7. As noted from the above grievance and the defence of the parties, the complaint is pertaining to excess billing of calls. In this regard, the counsel for the OP relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above and also under various clubbed appeals in FA No.460/2004 and other connected matters the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in view the of 7B of Telegraphic Act the dispute with regard to the excess billing, apparatus, appliance has to be decided by an arbitrator under the Act and complaint in connection with that matter before the Consumer Forum under provision of the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. Therefore, the case on hand is one which falls within the ambit of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and decisions of Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, with the result we answer point no-1 in the negative and pass the following order:<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 13th August 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />