Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/48/2015

M/s.G.Sampath - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager Marketing, BSNL, Chennai Tele Phones - Opp.Party(s)

K.Basker

13 Aug 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 19.12.2014

                                                                    Date of Disposal            : 13.08.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.48/2015

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019

                                 

Mr. G. Sampath,

S/o. Mr. A. Govindasamy,

No.2/891, First Street,

Periyar Nagar,

Madipakkam,

Chennai – 600 091.                                                        .. Complainant.                                             

 

                                                                                             ..Versus..

The General Manager (Marketing),

BSNL,

Chennai Telephones,

Mandaveli,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant     : M/s. K. Baskar & others

Counsel for the opposite party : M/s. K. Balajee & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to restore the complainant’s cell phone service with immediate effect and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for loss and damages suffered by the complainant due to the negligence of service with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he availed service of the opposite party for his mobile No.9444054869 with Internet Account No.500575878 to promote his business as a postpaid customer for more than 10 years and holds on unblemished record in the prompt payment of usage charges.  His credit limited is upto only Rs.5,000/-.   The complainant submits that in the month of July 2014, he went to Singapore on a business trip.  On 06.08.2014, he surprised to receive a message that his usage has crossed his credit limited of Rs.5,000/- and the outstanding amount is Rs.10,391.44 and was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as interim payment.  Immediately, the complainant also a paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- and switched off the internet facility.  The complainant issued an e-mail dated:12.08.2014 in detail regarding the message and the claim; for which on 13.08.2014, the opposite party sent an evasive reply.   The complainant submits that to his surprise, he received a message that his usage of internet facility to the tune of Rs.18,753.14 and Rs.47,739.47 without giving warning that his mobile numbers were disconnected which caused great mental agony due to the non-availability of mobile facility at Singapore for his business.  The complainant submits that the usage of 1024 MB amounts to 1 GB.  The complainant used only upto 70 MB.  Therefore, the claim of the opposite party to the tune of Rs.18,753.14 and Rs.47.739.47 is not only unbelievable but also unsustainable and highly illegal. The complainant submits that on 01.09.2014, the opposite party sent a bill for a sum of Rs.48,591/- and directed the complainant to pay the amount and for which, the complainant issued legal notice dated:07.10.2014 which was received by the opposite party on 27.10.2014 and reply sent by the opposite party through his Counsel demanding to pay Rs.48,591/- with 18% interest from 08.08.2014 which is wrongful gain on the side of opposite party.  But the opposite party has not come forward to settle the demands of the complainant.   The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.    Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states that the complainant availed the mobile connection and internet facility as under postpaid scheme for the credit limit of Rs.5,000/-.  The opposite party states that BSNL instructed the opposite party to alert the customers through SMS on reaching 90%, 200%, 300% & and 500 of usage and if the usage exceeds 500% due warning will be given and disconnection will be followed.  The opposite party states that the complainant used the mobile in international roaming. The CDRs for international roaming are received batch by batch only.  As per the CDRs dated:06.08.2014, the usage was Rs.10,391.44 and a SMS was sent to him and directed to pay Rs.5,000/-.  The opposite party states that the next batch of CDRs received on 07.08.2014 for the usage of Rs.18,743.14 and on 08.08.2014 another CDRs received for Rs.47,739.97 which exceeded 500%.  Hence, the service of mobile No.9445099325 has been barred from 08.08.2014.  The opposite party states that inspite of repeated remainders issued by SMS, the complainant has not paid the dues. After availing international roaming and the usage charges on international roaming are billed according to the international operator.  In this case M1 at Singapore and the rates charged by the operator in the BSNL website.  The reminder notice sent to the complainant on 24.09.2014 calling upon him to pay the outstanding dues of Rs.48,591/-.  The regular bill dated:01.09.2014 was issued to the complainant for the said amount including FMC and usage charges, service tax etc.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for damages, negligence and deficiency in service as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to restore the cell phone connection with cost of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties field their respective written arguments. Heard the opposite party’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he availed the opposite party mobile No.9444054869 with Internet Account No.500575878 to promote his business as a post-paid customer for more than 10 years.  His credit limited is upto Rs.5,000/-.  Further the contention of the complainant is that in the month of July 2014, he went to Singapore on a business trip.  On 06.08.2014, he surprised to receive a message that his usage has crossed his credit limit of Rs.5,000/- and the outstanding amount is Rs.10,391.44 and was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as interim payment.  Immediately, the complainant also a paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- and switched off the internet facility.  But the complainant has not produced any record. On the other hand, the complainant issued an e-mail dated:12.08.2014 as per Ex.A1 in detail regarding the claim for which on 13.08.2014, the opposite party sent a reply also as per Ex.A2.   Further the contention of the complainant is that to his surprise, he received a message that his usage of internet facility to the tune of Rs.18,753.14 and Rs.47,739.47 with a warning that his mobile numbers were disconnected which caused great mental agony due to the non-availability of mobile facility at Singapore for his business.  Further, the contention of the complainant is that the usage of 1024 MB amounts to 1 GB.  The complainant used only upto 70 MB. Therefore, the claim of the opposite party to the tune of Rs.18,753.14 and Rs.47.739.47 are highly illegal.   But the complainant has not produced any document to prove the usage of internet.  Further the contention of the complainant is that on 01.09.2014, the opposite party sent a bill as per Ex.A3 for a sum of Rs.48,591/- and directed the complainant to pay the amount.  For which, the complainant issued legal notice dated:07.10.2014 as per Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 acknowledgement card and due reply as per Ex.A6 also issued by the opposite party which caused great mental agony.

 6.    The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant availed the mobile connection and internet facility as under postpaid scheme for the credit limit of Rs.5,000/-.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that BSNL instructed the opposite party to alert the customers through SMS on reaching 90%, 200%, 300% & and 500 of usage and if the usage exceeds 500% due warning will be given and disconnection will follows.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant used the mobile in international roaming. The CDRs for international roaming are received batch by batch only.  As per the CDRs dated:06.08.2014, the usage was Rs.10,391.44.  Due SMS was sent to him and directed to pay Rs.5,000/-.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the next batch of CDRs received on 07.08.2014 for the usage of Rs.18,743.14 and on 08.08.2014 another CDRs received for Rs.47,739.97 which exceeded 500%.  Hence, the service of mobile No.9445099325 has been barred from 08.08.2014.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that inspite of repeated remainders issued by sms, the complainant has not paid the dues. After availing international roaming and the usage charges on international roaming are billed according to the international operator.  In this case M1 at Singapore and the rates charged by the operator in the BSNL website.  The reminder notice sent to the complainant on 24.09.2014 calling upon him to pay the outstanding dues of Rs.48,591/-.  The regular bill dated:01.09.2014 was issued to the complainant for the said amount including FMC and usage charges, service tax etc.  Since the complainant has not paid the amount due to the opposite party he is a defaulter. Muchless, wilful defaulter. The defaulter is not entitled to any relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 13^th day of August 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	12.08.2014	Copy of the complainant’s e-mail letter
Ex.A2	13.08.2014	Copy of reply given by the opposite party
Ex.A3	01.09.2014	Copy of the complainant’s bill
Ex.A4	07.10.2014	Copy of complainant’s legal notice
Ex.A5		Copy of acknowledgement card
Ex.A6	27.10.2014	Copy of reply given by the opposite party

 

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                        PRESIDENT