DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA Complaint No.11/22.01.2008 Decided on : 04.06.2008 Surinder Gupta, Advocate S/o Sh. Narata Ram, Gaushala Road, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Spice Telecommunications Limited, C-105, Phase-7, Mohali. 2.Shiva Communications, Gurdwara Chowk, Mansa through its Proprietor. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Complainant in person. Sh.S.K.Singla, Counsel for OP No.1. OP No.2 exparte. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: S.P.Gupta (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against Spice Telecommunications Limited, Mohali as well as Shiva Communications, Mansa through its Proprietor (hereinafter called as Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, respectively) for issuance of a direction to the opposite parties to delete the excess charges included in the bills in dispute and also pay him Rs.25,000/- as compensation, on account of mental as well as physical harassment. Admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant is the Contd........2 : 2 : consumer of the OPs with regard to mobile telephone connection No. 98144-47025, which is life long. On 5.11.2007 the complainant had availed a facility of 2000 SMS by paying Rs.100/- and at that time it was told by the Ops that charges will be levied on the messages sent on festivals days only. Upon the activation of this facility on his telephone, the complainant sent many Diwali messages on 08.11.2007. The opposite parties had issued bill dated 30.11.2007 for Rs.688.19 including Rs.499/- on account of SMS; Rs.86.67 on local calls and STD SMS. The amount is said to be illegal and the complainant is not liable to pay the same. The complainant even tried to contact on telephone number 98140-12345 of OP No.1 and the other officials by visiting them personally about his grievance, but it was told that at the time of activation of this facility on 5.11.2007 there was no such scheme. The Ops again sent a bill for Rs.935/- including the charges of previous bill. It was thus alleged that the complainant was not liable to pay the said bills and the illegal demand made by the opposite parties had caused him mental as well as physical harassment. Hence this complaint. In the written version filed by OP No.1, jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain and try this complaint has been challenged. It was contended that the complainant had failed to disclose the cause of action for deficiency in service on their part. The complainant was duly informed by the OP that he will be charged for sending the SMS on black out days i.e. Festival day and one day before the festival. According to the terms and conditions, the complainant was duly informed verbally and a publication in this regard was also made in the local news papers. The complainant can even check out the list of black out days from the website of the replying OP. It was also contended that the bill in dispute was Contd........3 : 3 : rightly issued to the complainant. All other allegations were denied by this OP and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. OP No.2 had not filed appearance despite service and, as such, exparte proceedings were ordered against it on 28.02.2008. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party and the complainant and carefully scrutinized the entire evidence placed on record by them. In order to challenge his liability to pay the disputed bill, copy of which is Exhibit C-1, much stress was laid by the complainant on the argument that at the time of activation of the scheme in dispute, he was told that charges will be levied on the messages sent on festivals days only. No such mention of any specific period was made by the ops at the time of activating this scheme on his mobile number. The allegations levelled in the complaint are supported by the affidavit of the complainant exhibit C-2. The contesting OP has placed on record Exhibit OP-1, a Public Notice for all the Spice Punjab Subscribers regarding their entitlement of free SMS facility The said Public Notice bears no date. Publication of advertisement in the local newspaper, as contended by OP No1 in its written version, has also not been produced. The absence of this publication and a public notice without any date has raised a doubt about the authenticity of the demand and recovery of the charges from the complainant at a later stage after activating the facility to him. Failure of OP No.2 to contest this complaint also makes its bonafides doubtful. In the light of the aforesaid observations, we are of the considered opinion that the opposite parties have failed to establish that the Contd........4 : 4 : complainant was made known of the said Public Notice, copy of which is Exhibit OP-1, well before the activation of the 2000 SMS free facility on his mobile on 5.11.2007. No other evidence, not even a affidavit of any responsible officer of the Ops, has been placed on record by the opposite parties to prove their stand. Resultantly, we are left with no other option but to allow this complaint with a direction to the opposite parties to either refund the amount of SMS charges included in the disputed bill, if paid by the complainant, or delete the amount in the disputed bill. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally also pay Rs.2,000/- by way of compensation as well as litigation costs on account of mental and physical harassment. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 04.06.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
